Schulman v. Krumholz
| Decision Date | 18 May 1981 |
| Citation | 439 N.Y.S.2d 160,81 A.D.2d 883 |
| Parties | Stanley SCHULMAN et al., Respondents, v. Jacob KRUMHOLZ et al., individually and as co-partners d/b/a 42 Kissena Realty and Krumholz Realty, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pliskin, Rubano & Baum, Flushing (Ralph L. Pliskin, Flushing, of counsel), for appellants.
Pearlman, Gottesman, Apat, Kupillas & Futterman, Kew Gardens (Stephen E. Pearlman, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MANGANO, J. P., and RABIN, MARGETT and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for tortious harassment, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 23, 1980, that granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
Plaintiffs are tenants in an apartment in a building owned by the defendants. Plaintiffs commenced this action in August, 1971 to recover damages for the physical anguish and mental distress they incurred as a result of a campaign of harassment defendants allegedly undertook against the plaintiffs in order to force plaintiffs to vacate their apartment. Issue was joined in December, 1971. By notice of motion dated February 14, 1980, plaintiffs moved for leave to serve an amended complaint to add one paragraph to allege essentially that the tortious conduct of defendants had continued "up to the present date".
Amendment of a complaint will not be permitted if there is prejudice to the opposing party. Prejudice in this context means that "the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okure v. Owens
...227 N.E.2d 572 (1967) (quoting Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 276 N.Y. 259, 264, 11 N.E.2d 902 (1937)). Thus, in Schulman v. Krumholz, 81 A.D.2d 883, 439 N.Y.S.2d 160 (1981) (mem.), the court reasoned that a cause of action for tortious harassment was in the nature of an intentional tort, and......
-
Jemison v. Crichlow
...time-barred ( see, Goldner v. Sullivan, Gough, Skipworth, Summers & Smith, 105 A.D.2d 1149, 1151, 482 N.Y.S.2d 606; Schulman v. Krumholz, 81 A.D.2d 883, 439 N.Y.S.2d 160). Those causes of action were therefore properly dismissed. The plaintiffs' other seven claims, aside from consideration ......
-
Goldner v. Sullivan, Gough, Skipworth, Summers and Smith
...of emotional distress is dismissed as time barred. The applicable statute of limitations is CPLR 215 (subd. 3) (see Schulman v. Krumholz, 81 A.D.2d 883, 439 N.Y.S.2d 160). There are no circumstances which would give rise to an estoppel precluding application of the The eighth cause of actio......
-
Kolomensky v. Wiener
...43 N.Y.2d 389, 401 N.Y.S.2d 767, 372 N.E.2d 555; Trott v. Merit Dept. Store, 106 A.D.2d 158, 484 N.Y.S.2d 827; Schulman v. Krumholz, 81 A.D.2d 883, 439 N.Y.S.2d 160). Lastly, we find no merit to the appellants' claim that since the duties and methods of compensation of a Sheriff and a City ......