From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplansky v. Kaplansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1995
212 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 21, 1995

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


Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The parties to this action entered into an agreement dated December 15, 1987, which, inter alia, provided for child custody and support. The agreement bears the defendant's signature and was signed and acknowledged by the defendant on December 15, 1987, before a Notary Public of the State of New York. The defendant's proposed amended answer and counterclaim alleged, among other things, that the agreement was void because he did not sign it on December 15, 1987.

The court properly denied the defendant's application for leave to amend his pleading since the proposed amendment lacks merit. While leave to amend under CPLR 3025 (b) "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just", leave should be denied if the proposed amendment is "patently lacking in merit" or its lack of merit is "clear and free from doubt" (Staines v Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 A.D.2d 718, citing Hauptman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 588; Norman v Ferrara, 107 A.D.2d 739; Grafer v. Marko Beer Beverages, 36 A.D.2d 295). In the instant case, the defendant's signature and acknowledgment appears on the agreement. Moreover, there is evidence that the defendant complied with the terms of the agreement and accepted its benefits. Accordingly, even if due execution had not been proven, we would have found that he ratified the agreement (see, Amestoy v. Amestoy, 151 A.D.2d 709, 710, citing Beutel v. Beutel, 55 N.Y.2d 957; Melchiorre v Melchiorre, 142 A.D.2d 558; DeGuire v. DeGuire, 125 A.D.2d 360; Bettino v. Bettino, 112 A.D.2d 181).

Further, under the facts of this case, where there is no discernable legitimate purpose for court-ordered forensic evaluations, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for the tests (see, Burgel v. Burgel, 141 A.D.2d 215, 218). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kaplansky v. Kaplansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 21, 1995
212 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Kaplansky v. Kaplansky

Case Details

Full title:DENISE KAPLANSKY, Respondent, v. STEVEN KAPLANSKY, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 21, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 766

Citing Cases

Tompkins v. International Bus. Mach. Corp.

eet their burden of showing that there was no coverage under the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs'…

Segale v. Nu Wave Marine, Inc.

Accordingly, the motion should be properly denominated as solely for reargument, the denial of which is not…