From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cannon v. Milone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.).


Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant Denise Cannon leave to serve an amended answer denying ownership of the premises where the plaintiff was injured. In her answer, Denise Cannon neglected to address paragraph two of the complaint which alleged that she was an owner of the property along with the estate of her deceased husband. After granting her motion for leave to serve an amended answer, the court granted her summary judgment.

"[M]otions to amend pleadings 'shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just with the decision to allow or disallow the amendment committed to the court's discretion'" (Courageous Syndicate v. People-to-People Sports Comm., 141 A.D.2d 599, quoting from Rothfarb v. Brookdale Hosp., 139 A.D.2d 720, 721-722; see, CPLR 3025 [b]). "While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is considered an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to amend in the absence of an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice" (Scarangello v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798, 799; see, Courageous Syndicate v. People-to-People Sports Comm., supra, at 599; Rothfarb v. Brookdale Hosp., supra, at 722).

The court properly granted Denise Cannon leave to serve an amended answer. The plaintiff timely commenced the action against Louis J. Milone, Jr., as executor of the estate of Thomas Cannon, her deceased ex-husband, who was the sole owner of the property. The plaintiff will suffer no prejudice from being limited to pursuing her suit against the estate only.

We also find that the court properly granted summary judgment to Denise Cannon. As she did not own the property, she owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and, therefore, no cause of action sounding in negligence lies against her.

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cannon v. Milone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 1990
157 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Cannon v. Milone

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDIA CANNON, Appellant, v. LOUIS J. MILONE, JR., as Executor of THOMAS…

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

Date published: Jan 16, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 793

Citing Cases

Town of Huntington v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins.

While a Court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is considered an…

Slaine v. Magnum Masonry, Inc.

White a Court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is considered an…