From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eng v. Di Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

January 26, 1981


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 15, 1979, which granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiff by appellant. Plaintiff's time to serve the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon her of copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The passage of time alone, without a further showing of prejudice, is insufficient to deny leave to amend a pleading (see Cerrato v. Crown Co., 58 A.D.2d 721; Yerdon v. Baldwinsville Academy, 39 A.D.2d 824), particularly where, as here, the proposed amendment merely changes the theory of recovery without alleging any new facts (see Cerrato v. Crown Co., supra; Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co., 52 A.D.2d 1029; Rife v. Union Coll., 30 A.D.2d 504). No prejudice has been shown which would warrant denial of the motion to amend. Titone, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Eng v. Di Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Eng v. Di Carlo

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN ENG, Respondent, v. THOMAS DI CARLO, Defendant and Third-Party…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1981

Citations

79 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Stuart v. Bd. of Directors, Police Benevolent

Thus, we are concerned with the two additional causes of action, malicious prosecution and intentional…

Seidler v. Knopf

Defendants have not otherwise shown any demonstrable prejudice as a result of the amendments. The passage of…