From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olewnik v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion to amend the answer and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), based on the amended answer. Defendant's motion was brought almost four years after commencement of the action. We conclude, under the circumstances, that granting the motion to amend the answer was an abuse of discretion (see, CPLR 3025).


Summaries of

Olewnik v. Bernstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 3, 1995
212 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Olewnik v. Bernstein

Case Details

Full title:JOHN OLEWNIK, Appellant, v. BENJAMIN BERNSTEIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 437

Citing Cases

Abraham Branch v. Abraham Strauss Dept

Moreover, the defendant failed to submit a copy of its proposed amended answer with the motion for the trial…