Murray v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 13 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | 3658. |
| Citation | 51 A.D.3d 502,2008 NY Slip Op 04386,858 N.Y.S.2d 131 |
| Parties | JOEL MURRAY, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. "Leave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay" (Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935 [1978] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice—the loss of some special right, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original answer contained the defense—resulting directly from defendants' delay in seeking the amendment (see Barbour v Hospital for Special Surgery, 169 AD2d 385, 386 [1991]). In light of his participation in the prior federal action, plaintiff can claim no surprise that defendants would seek to assert the defense of issue preclusion (see Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v Nissel, 27 AD3d 207 [2006]).
In his prior federal action, plaintiff asserted numerous causes of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the defendants in the present action. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from a policy adopted and enforced by defendants that required certain prisoners, including plaintiff, to be handcuffed behind their backs when transported from prison. The District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding, among other things, that: plaintiff's equal protection claim was meritless because the Department of Correction's policy to which he objected had a legitimate basis; his Eighth Amendment claim premised on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs was "baseless"; and his substantive due process claim based on defendants' alleged use of excessive force was without merit because he admitted that defendants used no such force (2005 WL 1863729, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 15993 [SD NY 2005]).
Plaintiff's present claim under the New York State Constitution's equal protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles v. Suvannavejh
...2008);Peach Parking Corp. v. 346 W. 40th St., LLC, 52 A.D.3d 260, 859 N.Y.S.2d 424 (1st Dep't 2008); Murray v. City of New York, 51 A.D.3d 502, 503, 858 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1st Dep't 2008). They may have spent hours at depositions while the parties explored only plaintiff's wrongful death claim, ......
-
In the Matter of Batdorj Dagvadorj v. Defleur
...Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 349–350, 690 N.Y.S.2d 478, 712 N.E.2d 647 [1999]; see generally Murray v. City of New York, 51 A.D.3d 502, 503–504, 858 N.Y.S.2d 131 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 703, 864 N.Y.S.2d 390, 894 N.E.2d 654 [2008] ). We do not arrive at the same conclusi......
-
Lum v. Consol. Edison
... ... SEQ. Nos. 002, 003 Index No. 160027/2020 Supreme Court, New York County November 16, 2021 ... Unpublished ... Opinion ... violation of the New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107 ... based upon gender, national origin, and disability ... surprise resulting directly from the delay." Murray ... v. City of New York, 51 A.D.3d 502, 858 N.YS.2d 131 [1st ... Dept 2008] (internal ... ...
-
Ayende v. The City of New York
... ... ) ... DISCUSSION ... A ... Plaintiffs Cross-Motion to Amend ... Generally, ... "[l]eave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given ... absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the ... delay" (Murray v City of New York, 51 A.D.3d ... 502, 503 [1st Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and ... citations omitted]). "[P]laintiff need not establish the ... merit of its proposed new allegations but simply show that ... the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or ... clearly devoid of ... ...