Hunt v. Godesky
| Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
| Citation | 592 N.Y.S.2d 781,189 A.D.2d 854 |
| Parties | David G. HUNT, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary T. GODESKY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Walter E. O'Leary, White Plains, for appellant.
Meiselman, Farber, Packman & Eberz, Poughkeepsie (Myra I. Packman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, MILLER, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated May 25, 1990, which, upon a ruling granting the defendant's motion to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel and for summary judgment, is in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated June 25, 1990, as upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (see, CPLR 5517[b].
ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
As a general rule, motions for leave to serve amended pleadings should be liberally granted unless the rights of the parties are substantially prejudiced (see, Cutwright v. Central Brooklyn Urban Dev. Corp., 127 A.D.2d 731, 512 N.Y.S.2d 128). Where the party opposing a motion to serve an amended pleading cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting directly from the delay, denial of the motion has been deemed to be an improper exercise of the court's discretion (see, Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 372 N.E.2d 560). In this case, the plaintiff could not claim prejudice because he had full knowledge of all the facts giving rise to the affirmative defense raised by the defendant in her amended answer.
Furthermore, the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel was properly asserted by the defendant in her amended answer. A judicial determination entered upon default fixing the value of a professional's services is a bar to an action to recover damages for malpractice by a defaulting defendant against that professional for malpractice in rendering those services (see, Gates v. Preston, 41 N.Y. 113; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N.Y. 150; Tantillo v. Giglio, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Altamore v. Friedman
...(Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N.Y. 150;" Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632, 416 N.Y.S.2d 646; see also, Hunt v. Godesky, 189 A.D.2d 854, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781). In the case before us, the same principles apply. Since there was a binding agreement to arbitrate, there was an identity of i......
-
Harris v. Stein
...of a professional's services is a bar to an action to recover damages for malpractice in rendering those services" (Hunt v. Godesky, 189 A.D.2d 854, 855, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781). The plaintiff's contention that she was justifiably unaware of her alleged malpractice claim at the time of the fee co......
-
Maor v. One Fifty Fifty Seven Corp., 8391
...[any] delay" in moving to add Garcia, who was identified as a putative plaintiff and deposed by defendants ( Hunt v. Godesky, 189 A.D.3d 854, 854, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2d Dept. 1993] ; see Sidor v. Zuhoski, 257 A.D.2d 564, 683 N.Y.S.2d 590 [2d Dept. 1999] ...
-
Fisher v. Braun
...New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164; Matter of Ward v. Bennett, 214 A.D.2d 741, 625 N.Y.S.2d 609; Hunt v. Godesky, 189 A.D.2d 854, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781; O'Neal v. Cohen, 186 A.D.2d 639, 588 N.Y.S.2d 621; Quiros v. Polow, 135 A.D.2d 697, 522 N.Y.S.2d 596). Since the proposed......