From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 14, 1998
253 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

September 14, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).


Order that the order dated April 14, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the purported appeal by D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. and Silverman, Collura, Chernis Balzano, P.C. from the order dated November 18, 1997, is dismissed, as those parties did not file a notice of appeal ( see, CPLR 5515); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal by D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. TL Investors Corp., Domenick Tonacchio, and Josephine Tonacchio from so much of the order dated November 18, 1997, as granted that branch of the motion which was for leave to serve an amended and supplemental complaint naming D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. and Silverman, Collura, Chernis Balzano, P.C., as additional defendants in action No. 2 is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by that portion of the order ( see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 18, 1997 is affirmed insofar as reviewed and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded on bill of costs.

Stipulations of settlements are favored by the courts and generally will not be set aside in the absence of fraud, overreaching or smoother ground sufficient to invalidate a contract ( see, Hallock v. State of New York 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230). In this case, where there is evidence of fraud, the court did not err in vacating the parties' stipulation.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]), absent a showing of prejudice or surprise. Here, there was no demonstration of prejudice or surprise and the proposed amended complaint insofar as it relates to D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp., T L Investors Corp., Domenick Tonacchio, and Josephine Tonacchio was not patently lacking in merit or palpably insufficient ( see, Bobrowsky v. Lexus, 215 A.D.2d 424). Consequently the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the amendment.

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit ( see, Morgan v. Monaghan, 201 A.D.2d 711).

Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 14, 1998
253 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

D.T. Plumbing Supply Corp. v. Weinstein

Case Details

Full title:D.T. PLUMBING SUPPLY CORP. et al., Appellants, v. MARVIN A. WEINSTEIN et…

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

Date published: Sep 14, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
677 N.Y.S.2d 480

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Abraham S

Although Frances S., the appellants' sister, cross-moved, approximately one month after the hearing, to…