From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well established that absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given upon such terms as are just. In addition, the granting of such leave is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and must be determined on a case by case basis ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Skinner v. Scobbo, 221 A.D.2d 334). Upon our review of the record, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to assert additional causes of action, while permitting the defendant to conduct additional discovery.

O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1998
251 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Cardozo v. Midway Motor Hotel

Case Details

Full title:GUSTAVO CARDOZO, Respondent, v. MIDWAY MOTOR HOTEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 548

Citing Cases

Real World Holdings LLC v. 393 W. Broadway Corp.

(Cardozo v Midway Motor Hotel, 251 A.D.2d 442, 443, 675 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2d Dep't 1998] [leave to amend…

Liendo v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The Supreme Court properly exercised…