From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kusak v. Allstate Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 5, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: On February 20, 1990, plaintiff's employment as an insurance agent for defendants was terminated. Plaintiff brought this action against defendants in February 1991, asserting six causes of action. In May or June 1992, plaintiff learned that defendants were sending letters to policy owners in which he was referenced as the agent. Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to assert a seventh cause of action alleging violation of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. We conclude that Supreme Court should have granted the motion. Absent prejudice or surprise, leave to amend should be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]). We do not rule upon the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment (Newton v Aqua Flo Co., 106 A.D.2d 919; see, De Forte v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 A.D.2d 1028; see also, Agway, Inc. v Williams, 185 A.D.2d 636).


Summaries of

Kusak v. Allstate Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Kusak v. Allstate Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH KUSAK, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

Zincke v. Pacific Energy Corp.

"Leave to amend should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise (Rosicki, Rosicki & Assoc., P.C. v…

Zincke v. Pac. Energy Corp.

Thus, plaintiff's motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of comparative negligence of Milro is also…