From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lechtrecker v. Lechtrecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

September 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiff's motion is granted, the proposed amended complaint is deemed served, and the defendant wife's time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Leave to serve an amended pleading is liberally granted (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935). While motions for such relief are addressed to the broad discretion of the trial court (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959; Kramer Sons v Facilities Dev. Corp., 135 A.D.2d 942; Fulford v. Baker Perkins, 100 A.D.2d 861), whose determination "will not lightly be set aside" (Beuschel v. Malm, 114 A.D.2d 569), the court herein erred in failing to grant the plaintiff's motion.

The fact that the plaintiff waited until the eve of trial, some four years after the commencement of the divorce action, did not justify the denial of his motion for leave to serve an amended complaint to add a cause of action for a divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment (see, A M Wallboard v. Marine Tower Assocs., 125 A.D.2d 354). This is especially true since the defendant failed to show that she was prejudiced or otherwise surprised as a result of the delay in seeking leave to amend (see, Vickers v. Vickers, 131 A.D.2d 565; Mattott v. Renault USA, 105 A.D.2d 697; D'Onofrio v. St. Joseph's Hosp. Health Center, 101 A.D.2d 686). Moreover, a review of the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint indicates that the plaintiff may be able to establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Echevarria v. Echevarria, 40 N.Y.2d 262; Miglio v. Miglio, 147 A.D.2d 460; Siczewicz v Siczewicz, 92 A.D.2d 915; Bulger v. Bulger, 88 A.D.2d 895; Stauble v. Stauble, 72 A.D.2d 581). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lechtrecker v. Lechtrecker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 23, 1991
176 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Lechtrecker v. Lechtrecker

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE LECHTRECKER, Appellant, v. FRANCESCA LECHTRECKER, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 23, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

Roseda J. v. Charles O.

"In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely…

Levine v. Levine

Although the determination as to whether to grant leave is generally left to the sound discretion of the…