From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Licameli v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Amend Pleading.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, BALIO AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Although leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted in the absence of surprise or prejudice ( see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman, 101 A.D.2d 712, 713), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to provide an explanation for the lengthy delay in asserting the claim ( see, Ives v. Correll, 211 A.D.2d 899, 900) and, in addition, defendant established that he would be prejudiced by the amendment in view of the fact that discovery is complete and a note of issue has been filed ( cf., Silvin v. Karwoski, 242 A.D.2d 945).


Summaries of

Licameli v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Licameli v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:ROSE LICAMELI AND JOSEPH LICAMELI, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. MARK C…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 353

Citing Cases

Wei Su v. Sotheby's Inc.

This unreasonable delay precludes him from proceeding with a claim for punitive damages. See Licameli v.…

Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc.

The facts of the case can be likened to those in Licameli v. Roberts ( 277 A.D.2d 1057). In affirming the…