Norwood v. City of New York

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation203 A.D.2d 147,610 N.Y.S.2d 249
Decision Date21 April 1994
PartiesJeffrey R. NORWOOD, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Page 249

610 N.Y.S.2d 249
203 A.D.2d 147
Jeffrey R. NORWOOD, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant,
New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department.
April 21, 1994.

Page 250

Before MURPHY, P.J., SULLIVAN, ROSENBERGER, ROSS and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered July 9, [203 A.D.2d 148] 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, adjudged that the plaintiff recover from the defendants the sum of $1,005,355, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the judgment is vacated, the defendants' motion to amend their answer is granted and the matter is remitted for a new trial, without costs.

The plaintiff, a former medical resident, instituted this action alleging that the defendants made certain libelous and slanderous remarks concerning his professional qualifications to the American Board of Internal Medicine and to the Long Island Jewish Medical Center where he had been conditionally accepted for a fellowship following his residency at Harlem Hospital. The jury found in his favor and awarded compensatory damages for past and future loss of income. Punitive damages were also assessed against the defendant Dobkin, the director of the residency program.

While we agree with the plaintiff that the allegations in the complaint were set forth with sufficient particularity (see, CPLR 3016[a]; Rossignol v. Silvernail, 185 A.D.2d 497, 586 N.Y.S.2d 343, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 760, 591 N.Y.S.2d 138, 605 N.E.2d 874), the Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to amend their answer to assert the affirmative defense of qualified privilege.

While the decision to allow or disallow an amendment to the pleadings is committed to the court's discretion (Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 404-405, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 372 N.E.2d 560, rearg. dsmd. 45 N.Y.2d 966, 412 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 384 N.E.2d 692), "[p]ermission to amend pleadings should be 'freely given' (CPLR 3025, subd [b]" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164).

The fact that the defendants moved to amend their answer just prior to opening statements was no bar to granting leave. A court may grant leave to amend pleadings "at any time" (CPLR 3025[b]. " 'Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Charles v. Suvannavejh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 17 d2 Novembro d2 2009
    ...N.Y.S.2d 180 (1st Dep't 2006); Abdelnabi v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d at 115, 709 N.Y.S.2d 548; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 148, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dep't 1994). 1. Defendants' Claim of Prejudice Although defendants vehemently protest plaintiff's unexcused and i......
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 d2 Agosto d2 2014
    ...(1st Dep't 2001) ; Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d 208, 209–10, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285 (1st Dep't 1997) ; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 148, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dep't 1994). See Sterling Natl. Bank v. American Elite Props. Inc., 91 A.D.3d 581, 937 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1st Dep't ......
  • Fogal v. Steinfeld
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 24 d1 Outubro d1 1994
    ...that Medtronic has moved to amend its answer on the eve of trial is not an absolute bar to granting leave [Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dept, 1994) ]; amendments may even be made during or after trial [Dittmar Explosives v. A.E. Ottaviano, Inc., 20 N.Y.......
  • Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Center, No. 04 Civ. 7594 VM AJP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 8 d1 Maio d1 2006
    ...by medical residency programs regarding their residents are subject to a qualified privilege. See, e.g., Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249, 250 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1994) (qualified privilege defense appropriate in trial regarding statements by plaintiffs former ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Charles v. Suvannavejh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 17 d2 Novembro d2 2009
    ...N.Y.S.2d 180 (1st Dep't 2006); Abdelnabi v. New York City Tr. Auth., 273 A.D.2d at 115, 709 N.Y.S.2d 548; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 148, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dep't 1994). 1. Defendants' Claim of Prejudice Although defendants vehemently protest plaintiff's unexcused and i......
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 19 d2 Agosto d2 2014
    ...(1st Dep't 2001) ; Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d 208, 209–10, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285 (1st Dep't 1997) ; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 148, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dep't 1994). See Sterling Natl. Bank v. American Elite Props. Inc., 91 A.D.3d 581, 937 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1st Dep't ......
  • Fogal v. Steinfeld
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 24 d1 Outubro d1 1994
    ...that Medtronic has moved to amend its answer on the eve of trial is not an absolute bar to granting leave [Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1st Dept, 1994) ]; amendments may even be made during or after trial [Dittmar Explosives v. A.E. Ottaviano, Inc., 20 N.Y.......
  • Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hosp. Center, No. 04 Civ. 7594 VM AJP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 8 d1 Maio d1 2006
    ...by medical residency programs regarding their residents are subject to a qualified privilege. See, e.g., Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 147, 610 N.Y.S.2d 249, 250 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1994) (qualified privilege defense appropriate in trial regarding statements by plaintiffs former ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT