From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. 401-403 57th St. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1392

June 12, 2003.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 14, 2001, which, in an action to compel issuance of stock and also seeking an accounting and damages for corporate waste and mismanagement, after opening statements in a nonjury trial, insofar as appealed from, dismissed plaintiff's causes of action relating to waste and mismanagement without prejudice, and denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint without prejudice to her alleging the proposed amendments in a new action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Pro Se, for plaintiff-appellant.

Judith H. Weil Pro Se, for defendants-respondents.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin, JJ.


Plaintiff's eve-of-trial motion to amend the complaint so as to add six new defendants in a case already six years old was properly denied. To grant the motion would have required that the case be stricken from the calendar in order to afford the proposed new parties a fair opportunity to prepare a defense (cf. Heller v. Provenzano, 303 A.D.2d 20, 756 N.Y.S.2d 26, 29-30, 2003 N.Y. App. Div LEXIS 1725, *5-9), and it does not appear that the named defendants, or even plaintiff, were amenable to such a result. Similar considerations warranted denial of that part of plaintiff's motion to amend as sought to establish her ownership of the stock retroactively. Once the motion to amend was denied, there was nothing left to try. Defendants stipulated to the relief sought in the unamended complaint relating to share ownership, and the causes of action alleging waste and mismanagement were pleaded by plaintiff in her individual capacity and thus facially defective (see Abrams v. Donati, 66 N.Y.2d 951). While plaintiff's motion to amend sought to plead the latter causes of action derivatively, it also, as noted, sought to add six new defendants. Under the circumstances, the "without prejudice" disposition of the proposed claims was a proper exercise of discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Lee v. 401-403 57th St. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2003
306 A.D.2d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lee v. 401-403 57th St. Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SOOK HI LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 401-403 57TH ST. REALTY CORP., AND…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 873