In the Matter of Jae v. Board of Educ. of Pelham Union Free School Dist.
Decision Date | 11 October 2005 |
Docket Number | 2004-03917.,2004-07769. |
Parties | In the Matter of JOEL JAE et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PELHAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their second motion for leave to amend the petition to include additional causes of action, and only partially granted their first motion for leave to amend the petition to withdraw all but the fourth and sixth causes of action. "Although leave to amend a pleading `shall be freely given' in the absence of surprise or prejudice ... the determination whether to grant such leave is within the court's discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed" (Sewkarran v DeBellis, 11 AD3d 445 [2004]; see CPLR 3025 [b]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the parties charted their own procedural course in which the Board of Education of Pelham Union Free School District (hereinafter the Board) compromised on numerous issues upon the petitioners' agreement to withdraw all but their fourth and sixth causes of action, significant prejudice would accrue to the Board if the petitioners' second motion for leave to amend the petition were granted (see Marine Midland Bank v Worldwide Indus. Corp., 307 AD2d 221, 222-23 [2003]). Further, the new causes of action the petitioners sought to plead in their second proposed amended petition are time-barred and patently lacking in merit, as they failed to name indispensable parties thereto (see CPLR 1001, 1003; Town of Webster v Village of Webster, 280 AD2d 931 [2001]; Matter of McQuay Group, McQuay-Perfex v New...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonacker Prop., LLC v. Vill. of E. Hampton Bd. of Trs.
...(see Matter of Thomas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 145 A.D.3d 30, 35, 40 N.Y.S.3d 74 ; Matter of Jae v. Board of Educ. of Pelham Union Free Sch. Dist., 22 A.D.3d 581, 584, 802 N.Y.S.2d 228 ; Goodson Todman Enters. v. Town Bd. of Milan, 151 A.D.2d 642, 643, 542 N.Y.S.2d 373 ; Matter of P......
-
Koubek v. Cnty. of Nassau
...in nature, [and that do] not perform governmental functions" are not "public bodies." Jae v. Bd. of Educ. of Pelham Union Free School Dist., 22 A.D.3d 581, 584, 802 N.Y.S.2d 228 (2d Dep't 2005) (finding that Board of Education's committees were not public bodies); see also Perez. 5 N.Y.3d a......
-
Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
...will not be deemed to be a “public body” for purposes of the Open Meetings Law (Matter of Jae v. Board of Educ. of Pelham Union Free School Dist., 22 A.D.3d 581, 584, 802 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2d Dept.2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 714, 816 N.Y.S.2d 749, 849 N.E.2d 972 [2006] ; see also Smith, 92 N.Y.2......
-
Jae v. Board of Educ. of Pelham Union Free School Dist.
...OF EDUC. OF PELHAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Decided May 9, 2006. Appeal from 2d Dept.: 22 A.D.3d 581, 802 N.Y.S.2d 228. Motion for leave to appeal ...