Fahey v. Ontario County

• Decision Date: 15 June 1978
• Citation: 408 N.Y.S.2d 314,44 N.Y.2d 934
• Parties: , 380 N.E.2d 146 Frank FAHEY et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO et al., Defendants, and Sheriff of the County of Ontario, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 314

408 N.Y.S.2d 314

44 N.Y.2d 934, 380 N.E.2d 146

Frank FAHEY et al., Respondents, v.COUNTY OF ONTARIO et al., Defendants and Sheriff of the County of Ontario, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Argued May 5, 1978.

Decided June 15, 1978.

David G. Retchless, County Atty. (Max Cohen, Canandaigria, of counsel), for appellant.

Michael R. McGee, Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, appellant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Leave to amend the pleadings "shall be freely given" absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay.(CPLR 3025, subd. (b);Sindle v. New York City Tr. Auth., 33 N.Y.2d 293, 296-297, 352 N.Y.S.2d 183, 185-186, 307 N.E.2d 245, 247.)Since the respondents cannot claim here such prejudice or surprise, the court below abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying appellant's motion to amend the answer to plead the Statute of Limitations.(Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 406, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 775, 372 N.E.2d 560, 563.)

BREITEL, C. J., and JA...