Quirk v. Lawler
| Decision Date | 07 December 1981 |
| Citation | 449 N.Y.S.2d 637,85 A.D.2d 597 |
| Parties | Thomas P. QUIRK, Respondent, v. John P. LAWLER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Berman, Paley, Goldstein & Berman, New York City (Jack S. Kannry and Albert S. Tablante, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Granik, Silverman, Sandberg, Kirschner, Campbell & Nowicki, New City (David W. Silverman and Carolyn A.M. Campe, New City, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Gagliardi, J.), dated October 6, 1980, that granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, which included an increase in the ad damnum clause. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although plaintiff has failed to offer a justifiable excuse for his delay in seeking this amendment, defendants have not demonstrated that they will suffer any prejudice because of the amendment. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted (see Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 444 N.Y.S.2d 571, 429 N.E.2d 90 ). We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
LAZER, J. P., and RABIN, COHALAN and MARGETT, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walter v. Bauer
...Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, 444 N.Y.S.2d 571, 429 N.E.2d 90; see also Osowicki v. Engert, 85 A.D.2d 778, 445 N.Y.S.2d 320; Quirk v. Lawler, 85 A.D.2d 597, 449 N.Y.S.2d 637). Defendants have not claimed prejudice and prejudice does not result merely from exposure to greater liability (Loomis v.......