Brooks v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 05 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-09943 |
| Citation | 56 A.D.3d 406,2008 NY Slip Op 08439,867 N.Y.S.2d 133 |
| Parties | BEN O. BROOKS, Respondent, v. GARY E. ROBINSON, Respondent, and BRIAN M. CHAMBERS, JR., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
A determination whether to grant leave to serve an amended pleading is within the trial court's broad discretion, the exercise of which will not be lightly disturbed (see Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806 [2007]; Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 44 AD3d 623, 624 [2007]; CPLR 3025 [b]). "In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the amending party was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom" (Mohammed v City of New York, 242 AD2d 321, 321 [1997]; see F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533, 534 [1993]). In addition, "[w]here . . . the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave to amend should be denied" (Morton v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 AD3d 381, 381 [2006]; Thone v Crown Equip. Corp., 27 AD3d 723, 724 [2006]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Brian E. Chambers, Jr., which was for leave to amend his answer. Chambers failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his delay. Additionally, the facts upon which Chambers based that branch of his motion which was for leave to amend the answer were known to him when he initially answered the complaint. Chambers's assertion that he did not give the defendant Gary E. Robinson permission to operate Chambers's vehicle on June 16, 2004 involved a matter that obviously was known to him when he answered the complaint on or about November 15, 2005. No explanation was offered for the failure to plead the issue in the answer. Neither was any explanation offered for the failure to take an appeal from the order dated August 2, 2006 granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Baritz
...nearly five-year delay in seeking to add them (see Yong Soon Oh v. Hua Jin, 124 A.D.3d 639, 640, 1 N.Y.S.3d 307 ; Brooks v. Robinson, 56 A.D.3d 406, 407, 867 N.Y.S.2d 133 ).Baritz's remaining contention need not be reached in light of our ...
-
MVB Collision, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...(see CPLR 3025[b] ; Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v. Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1035, 1037, 920 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Brooks v. Robinson, 56 A.D.3d 406, 407, 867 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 227, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238 ). To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349......
-
Great American Restoration Servs. Inc. v. Sippin
...predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered and whether prejudice resulted therefrom." (Brooks v. Robinson, 56 A.D.3d 406, 867 N.Y.S.2d 133 (2d Dept. 2008); Cohen v. Ho, 38 A.D.3d 705, 833 N.Y.S.2d 542 (2d Dept. 2007)). Leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given w......
-
Congel v. Malfitano
...the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see Brooks v. Robinson, 56 A.D.3d 406, 407, 867 N.Y.S.2d 133; Scofield v. DeGroodt, 54 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 864 N.Y.S.2d 174; Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 227, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238......