From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fidelity Holdings v. Marom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2000
276 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued June 15, 2000

October 2, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 18, 1999, as granted those branches of the defendants' cross motion which were for leave to amend their answer and to interpose ten counterclaims, four of which included demands for punitive damages.

Benjamin Vinar, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.

Cooper Culley, P.C., Rosedale, N.Y. (Kevin P. Culley of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The defendants cross-moved for leave to amend their answer and to interpose eleven counterclaims, of which the fourth, sixth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh included demands for punitive damages. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of the cross motion which were for leave to amend the answer and to interpose ten of those counterclaims, specifically the first through the fifth and the seventh through the eleventh. In the absence of surprise or prejudice resulting from the delay, leave to amend pleadings shall be given freely (see, CPLR 3025[b]; McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755; Sharon Ava Co. v. Olympic Tower Assocs., 259 A.D.2d 315). In addition, the proposed fourth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh counterclaims sufficiently set forth claims for punitive damages (see, Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 241; Werner, Zarof, Slotnick, Stern Askenazy v. Lewis, 155 Misc.2d 558).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Fidelity Holdings v. Marom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2000
276 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Fidelity Holdings v. Marom

Case Details

Full title:FIDELITY HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MICHAEL MAROM, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
713 N.Y.S.2d 703

Citing Cases

Vega-Ruiz v. Keller

Leave to Amend Pleadings Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice…

Skylarsky v. New Hope Guild Ctr.

Analysis Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice resulting from the…