From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chemicraft v. Honeywell Protection Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1990
161 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


Plaintiffs commenced this action in October 1981 to recover for water damage to certain property alleged to have occurred on December 27, 1980. In November 1988, plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to substitute a different corporation, Perforated Specialties Co., Inc., as the sole plaintiff. Plaintiffs contended that the three companies were family owned with the same officers/shareholders, but submitted no documentation to substantiate this claim. Nor did plaintiffs explain their delay in making the motion. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the claims were time barred and they would be substantially prejudiced by the substitution, inasmuch as witnesses had died, employees could no longer be located or identified, and records and other documents were now lost or missing. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs had not established a sufficient basis to amend their pleadings and had not accounted for their delay. We agree.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given in the absence of prejudice to the other party (CPLR 3025 [b]; 2001; Bellini v Gersalle Realty Corp., 120 A.D.2d 345). However, where, as here, the movants were guilty of gross laches and the substitution would substantially prejudice the other parties, leave to amend was properly denied (Manhattan Plaza v. Air Tech Indus., 107 A.D.2d 578; Neggy Travel Serv. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 56 A.D.2d 537).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Chemicraft v. Honeywell Protection Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 8, 1990
161 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Chemicraft v. Honeywell Protection Services

Case Details

Full title:CHEMICRAFT CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. HONEYWELL PROTECTION…

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

Date published: May 8, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 250 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
554 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

Salva v. Levine

And in Chemicraft Corp. v Honeywell Protection Servs., the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to…

Pecora v. Pecora

Documents belonging to the building purchaser were destroyed in 2018 - after this litigation began in 2014 -…