From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warrensburg Bd. Paper v. Adirondack Hydro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1992
186 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 17, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Warren County (Dier, J.).


Three years after plaintiff served its original complaint on defendants, plaintiff moved for leave to serve an amended complaint. Only defendant Laquidara, Inc. specifically opposed this motion, which Supreme Court denied. Plaintiff now appeals. Absent significant prejudice to the opposing party, leave to serve an amended pleading should be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Plattsburgh Distrib. Co. v Hudson Val. Wine Co., 108 A.D.2d 1043, 1044). The only prejudice alleged by Laquidara in its opposition papers is the increased damages that will result due to plaintiff's new causes of action. Prejudice cannot be found, however, simply because a party is exposed to increased liability (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23; Dolan v Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 781, 785).

The affidavit by plaintiff's plant manager also indicates, contrary to Laquidara's contention, that the facts which form the basis of the new causes of action were not known to plaintiff until at least a year after the original complaint was served. In addition, the same affidavit also points out that defendants were made aware of these same facts at about the same time that plaintiff learned of them. Consequently, although plaintiff delayed in seeking leave to serve the amended complaint, this is not a barrier to the amendment as Laquidara can show neither prejudice nor surprise (see, McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Rutz v Kellum, 144 A.D.2d 1017, 1018). Because Laquidara has failed to demonstrate prejudice, surprise or a tenable claim that the amendment lacks merit, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion (see, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; Ramundo v Town of Guiderland, 108 A.D.2d 995, 996).

Weiss, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Warrensburg Bd. Paper v. Adirondack Hydro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1992
186 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Warrensburg Bd. Paper v. Adirondack Hydro

Case Details

Full title:WARRENSBURG BOARD AND PAPER CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ADIRONDACK HYDRO…

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

Date published: Sep 17, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
587 N.Y.S.2d 786

Citing Cases

Secore v. Allen

Furthermore, it is clear that the original pleading, as well as the ensuing disclosure, gave defendants ample…

Barraza v. Sambade

The record unequivocally demonstrates that Ramon Sambade was familiar with the facts underlying these causes…