Hunt v. Godesky

• Decision Date: 25 January 1993
• Citation: Hunt v. Godesky, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781, 189 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
• Parties: David G. HUNT, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary T. GODESKY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 781

592 N.Y.S.2d 781

189 A.D.2d 854

David G. HUNT, Jr., Appellant, v.Mary T. GODESKY, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Jan. 25, 1993.

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ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment dated May 25, 1990, is dismissed as that judgment was superseded by the order dated June 25, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated June 25, 1990, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it further,

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...