From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AFBT-II, LLC v. Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 19, 2005
21 A.D.3d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-08745.

September 19, 2005.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.) dated July 23, 2004, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to the extent of permitting it to add a cause of action against the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone for money had and received.

Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Glenn B. Gruder of counsel), for appellants.

Zavatsky, Mendelsohn, Gross, Savino Levy, LLP, Syosset, N.Y. (Joseph C. Savino of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc., is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that defendant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further;

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone; and it is further;

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The determination whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is within the court's discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not lightly be disturbed ( see CPLR 3025 [b]; Naranjo v. Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 438, 439; cf. Young v. A. Holly Patterson Geriatric Ctr., 17 AD3d 667). The failure to offer an excuse for the delay does not alone bar amending a pleading ( see Holchendler v. We Transp., 292 AD2d 568, 569; Northbay Constr. Co. v. Bauco Constr. Corp., 275 AD2d 310, 312). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to the extent of granting leave to add a cause of action against the defendants Lawrence T. Gresser and Joseph Simeone for money had and received. There was no showing of significant prejudice or surprise ( see Holchendler v. We Transp., supra; Northbay Constr. Co. v. Bauco Constr. Corp., supra at 311-312).


Summaries of

AFBT-II, LLC v. Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 19, 2005
21 A.D.3d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

AFBT-II, LLC v. Country Village on Mooney Pond, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:AFBT-II, LLC, Respondent, v. COUNTRY VILLAGE ON MOONEY POND, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 19, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 6759
801 N.Y.S.2d 366

Citing Cases

Mials v. Millington

Here, the proposed amended complaint set forth allegations that are not palpably insufficient or patently…

Cortes v. Jing Jeng Hang

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs. “A party may amend its pleadings at any time by…