Mayers v. D'Agostino
| Decision Date | 02 December 1982 |
| Citation | 458 N.Y.S.2d 904,58 N.Y.2d 696 |
| Parties | , 444 N.E.2d 1323 William MAYERS, Respondent, v. Nicholas D'AGOSTINO et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 87 A.D.2d 519, 447 N.Y.S.2d 926, should be affirmed, with costs.
CPLR 3211 (subd. [e] ) provides, inter alia, that a defense based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel is waived unless raised either in a responsive pleading or in a motion made before service of the responsive pleading is required.
Defendants raised the defense of collateral estoppel for the first time during the trial. Consequently, defendants waived this defense unless they could obtain leave to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense.
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend an answer is within the trial court's discretion (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev. ed.], § 150, pp. 595-596; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 3025.14). Since one of the purposes upon which the doctrine of collateral estoppel is premised is to conserve the resources of the courts and litigants (Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 291, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49, 423 N.E.2d 807) and since defendants failed to move to amend their answer until plaintiff had presented nearly all his evidence, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court, in denying the motion, abused its discretion.
In view of defendants' waiver of the defense of collateral estoppel, we need not pass on the question of the propriety of raising that defense under the circumstances present here.
We have also considered the evidentiary issues raised by defendants and find no basis for reversal.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weinberg v. Picker
...recognition of aims which seek, inter alia, "to conserve the resources of the courts and litigants" (Mayers v. D'Agostino, 58 N.Y.2d 696, 698, 458 N.Y.S.2d 904, 444 N.E.2d 1323) and promote the finality of judgments (Read v. Sacco, 49 A.D.2d 471, 473, 375 N.Y.S.2d 371). However, this court ......
-
Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner, LLC
...51 ). One of the purposes of the doctrine is to conserve the resources of the courts and litigants (see Mayers v. D'Agostino, 58 N.Y.2d 696, 698, 458 N.Y.S.2d 904, 444 N.E.2d 1323 ; Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 291, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49, 423 N.E.2d 807 ). The collateral estoppel doctrine ......
-
Lennon v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC
... ... 752, 754). One of the purposes of the doctrine is to conserve ... the resources of the courts and litigants ( see Mayers v ... D'Agostino , 58 N.Y.2d 696, 698; Gilberg v ... Barbieri , 53 N.Y.2d 285, 291) ... The ... collateral ... ...
-
Pellegrino v. New York City Transit Authority
...whether to grant such leave is within the court's sound discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis (Mayers v. D'Agostino, 58 N.Y.2d 696, 458 N.Y.S.2d 904, 444 N.E.2d 1323). In exercising its discretion, the court will consider whether there has been a gross delay in asserting the ......