From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BONNEN v. CHIN HUA CHIANG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted March 22, 2000.

May 8, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 23, 1999, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied their cross motion to amend their complaint and bill of particulars.

Vitacco Vitacco, Elmhurst, N.Y. (Michael E. Lipson of counsel), for appellants.

Peter J. Creedon Associates, Garden City, N.Y. (Catherine F. Cavanagh and James J. Toomey, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion to amend their complaint and bill of particulars. While it is recognized that leave to amend a pleading may be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025[a]), leave should be denied as a matter of law where, as here, the proposed amendment is plainly lacking in merit (see, Parisi v. Leppard, 237 A.D.2d 419; McKiernan v. McKiernan, 207 A.D.2d 825). In addition, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Any failure by the defendants to maintain their premises was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (see, Rizzi v. Scarsdale Leasing Corp., 223 A.D.2d 696).

MANGANO, P.J., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

BONNEN v. CHIN HUA CHIANG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2000
272 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

BONNEN v. CHIN HUA CHIANG

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth Bonnen, etc., et al., appellants, v. Chin Hua Chiang, et al.…

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

Date published: May 8, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 365

Citing Cases

Sklar v. New York Hosp. Queens

As stated previously, a motion for leave to amend must be denied where the court finds that the proposed…

Hennessey v. 91 Am. Grocery

( See, Curran v. Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 A.D.2d 636 [2d Dept. 20011; Heckler Elec. Co. v Matrix Exhibits-N.…