From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We do not accept the plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to amend certain allegations of the complaint and bill of particulars and increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint to include punitive damages. While it is firmly established that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025 [b]), a motion to amend is committed to the broad discretion of the trial court, and the resulting determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Citrin v. Royal Ins. Co., 172 A.D.2d 795; Napoli v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 166 A.D.2d 696; Redco v. Town of Oyster Bay, 160 A.D.2d 984; Garza v. VICO Utils., 150 A.D.2d 520).

The proposed factual allegations would add new theories of liability as to the knowledge of the defendant General Motors Corporation of any prior complaints or notice of any defect nine years after the injury, eight years after the commencement of the action, and after the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and withdrew the case from the trial calendar on two occasions.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' motion was not supported by an affidavit showing the merit of the proposed amendments, nor by any affidavit showing a reasonable excuse for the extensive delay in seeking leave to amend the pleadings. General Motors Corporation would be prejudiced through the assertion of a new theory of liability, i.e., that it had prior notice of a defect, to which Canada Dry Bottling Co. of N.Y. had only conclusorily alluded in the motion (see, Marks v. Radmin, 163 A.D.2d 368; Napoli v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., supra; Hypertronics Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 159 A.D.2d 607; Gallo v. Aiello, 139 A.D.2d 490; Alexander v. Seligman, 131 A.D.2d 528; Raies v Apple Annie's Rest., 115 A.D.2d 599).

The case of Masaki v. General Motors Corp. ( 71 Haw. 1, 780 P.2d 566), relied upon by the plaintiffs, is inapposite. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Scott v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 21, 1994
202 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Scott v. General Motors Corp.

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN SCOTT et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 252

Citing Cases

White v. New York City Transit Authority

In support of her motion, inter alia, to amend the complaint and the bill of particulars, the plaintiff…

Wagner v. Waldbaum, Inc.

"Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient,…