From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

May 14, 1976

Appeal from the Onondaga Supreme Court.

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Simons, Mahoney, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Despite the delay in seeking to amend the complaint, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the application. Plaintiff states a reasonable ground for the amendment. In the amended complaint the same basic facts are alleged as are contained in the original complaint, and defendant does not show that it will be prejudiced thereby.


Summaries of

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 14, 1976
52 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Handley v. Mirro Aluminum Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CLAUDE C. HANDLEY, as Administrator of the Estate of MICHAEL F. HANDLEY…

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

Date published: May 14, 1976

Citations

52 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Eng v. Di Carlo

Plaintiff's time to serve the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon her of copy of…

Cerrato v. R.H. Crown Co.

Special Term granted plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint setting forth two additional causes of action…