From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodbrook Houses, Inc. v. Hercoform Mktg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 3, 1987
129 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 3, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Galloway, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr and Green, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add specific items of damage arising from the alleged breach of contract and to increase the ad damnum clause was improperly denied. It is well established that leave to amend may be granted at any time and should freely be granted upon such terms as may be just (CPLR 3025 [b]). While the motion is addressed to the discretion of the court (Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957; Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400), "'[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, supra, at 959, quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:5, at 477). There has been no demonstration that such prejudice exists here. The proposed amendments do not assert a new cause of action or add a new theory of liability. Plaintiffs seek only to specify with greater particularity the items of damage resulting from the alleged breach of contract. While the additions are dramatic and change the potential value of the lawsuit, defendants have always been on notice of the underlying claim. There is no indication that defendants have been hindered in their preparation or that they have been prevented from taking some measure in support of their position (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23). Accordingly, the order must be modified to grant plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.

We have reviewed the other issues raised by the parties and we find none to be of such merit as would require further modification of the appealed order. The parties should expeditiously complete discovery and a new note of issue should be filed at the appropriate time.


Summaries of

Woodbrook Houses, Inc. v. Hercoform Mktg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 3, 1987
129 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Woodbrook Houses, Inc. v. Hercoform Mktg

Case Details

Full title:WOODBROOK HOUSES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. HERCOFORM…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Matter of Garofalo

Petitioner's prayer for relief requested "exclusive use and possession of the motel". However, on our review…

Catlyn & Derzee, Inc. v. Amedore Land Developers, LLC

A motion for leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise to…