From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glorioso v. DeBlasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 1996
227 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 28, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely given absent prejudice to the opposing party ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957; Thailer v. LaRocca, 174 A.D.2d 731), such a motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is totally devoid of merit ( see, Zabas v. Kard, 194 A.D.2d 784). Because the conduct alleged in the proposed amended complaint does not establish a claim for treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Glorioso v. DeBlasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 1996
227 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Glorioso v. DeBlasio

Case Details

Full title:BARTHOLOMEW GLORIOSO, Appellant, v. PETER E. DeBLASIO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 28, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
643 N.Y.S.2d 402

Citing Cases

McCluskey v. Gabor

The defendants' alleged misconduct, even if it were proven, did not rise to a violation of Judiciary Law §…

Holtkamp v. Parklex Assocs.

The conduct alleged by the plaintiffs occurred in part prior to the applicable three-year period of…