From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Birch Wathen Lenox v. Butler Rogers Baskett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2006
25 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7429.

January 17, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered June 10, 2005, which granted defendant Butler Rogers Baskett's motion to preclude plaintiff from amending its expert disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Hodgson Russ LLP, New York (Joel M. Wolosky of counsel), for appellant.

Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll Bertolotti, LLP, New York (Robert A. Banner of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ. Concur.


In this action alleging architect malpractice, the motion court properly denied leave to amend to add an additional theory of damages in light of, inter alia, plaintiff's prolonged resistance to disclosure regarding such damages and the fact that the amendment was sought virtually on the eve of trial ( cf. Lissak v. Cerabona, 10 AD3d 308).


Summaries of

Birch Wathen Lenox v. Butler Rogers Baskett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 2006
25 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Birch Wathen Lenox v. Butler Rogers Baskett

Case Details

Full title:THE BIRCH WATHEN LENOX SCHOOL, Appellant, v. BUTLER ROGERS BASKETT, P.C.…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 244
806 N.Y.S.2d 872

Citing Cases

Woolridge v. LaCrosse Lumber Co.

In all the cases the courts have looked to the proofs where it was sought to show the identity of a person…

Sanchez v. City of N.Y.

Thus, plaintiff has failed to show that “there [was] simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible…