From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1999
260 A.D.2d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 26, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the length of the defendants' delay in moving to amend their answer, their failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the prejudice the proposed amendment would cause the plaintiff, and the apparent lack of merit of the proposed amendment, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion ( see, Tricarico v. B B Equip. Co., 249 A.D.2d 296; Matter of Goggins, 231 A.D.2d 634).

Altman, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1999
260 A.D.2d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Greenstone Roberts Advertising, Inc. v. Bernard Hodes Advertising, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GREENSTONE ROBERTS ADVERTISING, INC., Respondent, v. BERNARD HODES…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 665

Citing Cases

Trans-World Trading v. N. Shore Univ. Hosp. Plainview

This is definitely a substantial delay and it is particularly notable that Plaintiff has failed to give a…