From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Twitchell v. Town of Pittsford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 26, 1980
78 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

September 26, 1980

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) permits amendment of pleadings at any time by leave of court and directs that leave be freely given. It is well settled that the statute should be liberally construed and amendment should be granted absent laches, undue prejudice or unfair advantage. Liberality does not, however, require courts to permit futile amendments (Citibank [N.Y. State], N.A. v. Suthers, 68 A.D.2d 790). On this appeal the third-party plaintiff asserts such futility but at Special Term it submitted no pleading in opposition to the motion to amend made by the third-party defendant. Thus the futility issue is not before us on this appeal. The third-party defendant's motion under CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) to amend its answer by asserting certain agreements between the parties was proper and Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion.


Summaries of

Twitchell v. Town of Pittsford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 26, 1980
78 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

Twitchell v. Town of Pittsford

Case Details

Full title:FRANK T. TWITCHELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF PITTSFORD, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Sep 26, 1980

Citations

78 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

Staines v. Nassau Queens Medical Group

Therefore, the proposed amended claims are time-barred. Moreover, as the plaintiff never presented herself to…

Kappell v. WHEC-TV, LLC

Following Defendants' motion Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to amend the complaint to cure his…