From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 1999
257 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 12, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.).


Plaintiff withdrew its claims for monetary damages in 1994 and numerous subsequent pretrial rulings have been made in reliance upon the absence of any claim for damages. The action, after extraordinarily protracted discovery, is now trial ready, plaintiff having previously filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness. Thus, the motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to assert, once again, a claim for monetary damages, particularly since permitting the amendment at this late stage in the litigation would be prejudicial to defendant ( see, Adams Drug Co. v. Knobel, 129 A.D.2d 401, 404).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Avenue Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 12, 1999
257 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Avenue Associates

Case Details

Full title:GRAUBARD MOLLEN HOROWITZ POMERANZ SHAPIRO, Appellant, v. 600 THIRD AVENUE…

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

Date published: Jan 12, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
682 N.Y.S.2d 354

Citing Cases

Melendez v. Pro Sports & Entm't

. To allow defendants to amend its answer at such a late date would significantly prejudice plaintiff (see…

Johnson v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

"While [defendants were] or should have been aware of the facts and theories asserted in the amended…