From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Debell v. Cousins, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CA 02-01902

February 7, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Bergin, J.), entered November 1, 2001, which, inter alia, denied that part of the motion of plaintiff in action No. 1 for leave to serve a cross claim against plaintiff in action No. 2.

JOHN A. SCHUPPENHAUER, CANANDAIGUA, For Plaintiff-appellant.

PHILLIPS, LYTLE, HITCHCOCK, BLAINE HUBER LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK J. MORETTI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT GREGORY STAHL. WOLFORD LE CLAIR, LLP, BUFFALO (LAURIE A. GIORDANO OF COUNSEL), For Defendant-respondent KATRINA MARTINEZ.

PRESENT: WISNER, J.P., SCUDDER, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation discontinuing the appeal insofar as it concerns defendants Gregory Stahl and Katrina Martinez in action No. 1 signed by the attorneys for the parties and filed on December 24, 2002.

It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal from said order insofar as it concerns defendants Gregory Stahl and Katrina Martinez be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation and the order is modified on the law by granting that part of the motion seeking leave to serve a cross claim upon condition that plaintiff in action No. 1 shall serve the proposed cross claim within 20 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We agree with Roger J. DeBell, the plaintiff in action No. 1, that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying that part of his motion seeking leave to serve a cross claim against Josephine DeBell, the plaintiff in action No. 2. The two actions are in the early stages of discovery, plaintiff established a valid basis for the cross claim and, indeed, the motion was unopposed and thus no prejudice was shown (see generally CPLR 3025 [b]; Hogarth v. City of Syracuse [appeal No. 1], 238 A.D.2d 887, lv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 935, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 812; Marine Midland Bank v. Stanton, 147 Misc.2d 426, 429-430).


Summaries of

Debell v. Cousins, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 7, 2003
302 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Debell v. Cousins, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROGER J. DEBELL, Plaintiff-appellant, v. COUSINS, INC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
755 N.Y.S.2d 355

Citing Cases

Iannone v. Iannone

While leave to amend a pleading should be freely given ( see CPLR 3025 [b]), the decision as to whether to…