From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huntington v. Frank Trotta Auto Wreckers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1999
257 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 25, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendants Frank Trotta Auto Wreckers, Inc., and Charles Trotta to assert a cross claim against the defendant Michael Montesano for conversion of funds held in escrow. Leave to amend will be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice or surprise ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Noanjo Clothing v. L M Kids Fashion, 207 A.D.2d 436; Kraus v. Brandstetter, 185 A.D.2d 302; Scharfman v. National Jewish Hosp. Research Ctr., 122 A.D.2d 939). Mere lateness, in the absence of prejudice, is not a barrier to amendment ( see, Quiros v. Polow, 135 A.D.2d 697, 699). In this case, the motion for leave to amend was made after Montesano was disqualified as the attorney for the respondents in this action and one year after the respondents obtained new counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, the length of the delay was not unreasonable. Furthermore, Montesano cannot claim prejudice or surprise since the cross claim arises out of the same facts as those underlying the action brought by the plaintiffs ( see, Nissenbaum v. Ferazzoli, 171 A.D.2d 654, 655).

Miller, J.P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Huntington v. Frank Trotta Auto Wreckers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1999
257 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Huntington v. Frank Trotta Auto Wreckers

Case Details

Full title:ROGER HUNTINGTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRANK TROTTA AUTO WRECKERS, INC.…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
684 N.Y.S.2d 570

Citing Cases

Tinajero v. B.O.E. of City of New York

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the cross motion…

St. Paul Fire Marine v. Town of Hempstead

It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches…