Sheppard v. Charles A. Smith Well Drilling and Water Systems
| Decision Date | 07 June 1984 |
| Citation | 477 N.Y.S.2d 480,102 A.D.2d 919 |
| Parties | Gerald B. SHEPPARD, Respondent, v. CHARLES A. SMITH WELL DRILLING AND WATER SYSTEMS, Respondent, and Smeal Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ingber, Lagarenne & Du Bois, Monticello (Lawrence E. Lagarenne, Monticello, of counsel), for appellant Smeal.
Appelbaum, Eisenberg, Bauman & Appelbaum, Liberty (Bertram W. Eisenberg, Liberty, of counsel), for respondent Sheppard.
Cline, MacVean, Lewis & Sherwin, P.C., Middletown (Monte J. Rosenstein, Middletown, of counsel), for respondent Smith.
Before KANE, J.P., and CASEY, WEISS, MIKOLL and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 16, 1983 in Sullivan County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint to add a new party defendant.
The sole issue in this case is whether Special Term abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in first denying the motion by defendant Smeal Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Smeal) to dismiss a second amended complaint which added an additional party defendant, and instead granted plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve the second amended complaint. We think not and, for the reasons stated, affirm the order of Special Term. The underlying lawsuit is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when a derrick mounted on a truck and connected to an overhead trolley hoist owned by and located in the garage of defendant Charles A. Smith Well Drilling and Water Systems (Smith) fell, striking plaintiff and rendering him a paraplegic. Smith commenced a third-party action against Smeal, the manufacturer of the equipment, after which plaintiff served an amended complaint adding Smeal as a defendant and incorporating similar causes of action directly against Smeal. The jury verdict of $625,000 against Smith which exonerated Smeal was reversed by this court (Sheppard v. Smith Well Drilling & Water Systems, 93 AD2d 474, 463 N.Y.S.2d 546), and a new trial was ordered on the issues of both liability and damages. Thereafter and without leave, plaintiff served a second amended complaint naming Morris Pipe and Supply, Inc., the installer of the hoist device, as a new party defendant, prompting a motion by Smeal to dismiss for failure to comply with CPLR 1003 and CPLR 3025 (subd. ). Plaintiff cross-moved for leave to serve the pleading.
Smeal contends that substantial prejudice will result by increasing the time and expense of pretrial discovery, and, in addition, that it will be severely limited in its ability to obtain future appellate review. Because we find that Smeal has failed to demonstrate prejudice, we disagree.
"A party may amend his pleading * * * at any time by leave of court", and "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 3025, subd. see Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 404, 401 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peculis v. Longview Fibre Co.
...471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164). "Lateness alone is no barrier to the amendment" under CPLR 3025(b) (Sheppard v. Smith Well Drilling & Water Sys., 102 A.D.2d 919, 477 N.Y.S.2d 480). While the defendant must show a reasonable excuse for delay in seeking to amend pleadings (March v. St. Volo......
-
Lazzari v. Qualcon Constr., LLC
...Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Budoff , 112 A.D.2d 361, 491 N.Y.S.2d 812 [2d Dept. 1985] ; Sheppard v. Charles A. Smith Well Drilling and Water Systems , 102 A.D.2d 919, 477 N.Y.S.2d 480 [3d Dept. 1984] ; Ciunci v. Wella Corp ., 23 A.D.2d 754, 258 N.Y.S.2d 994 [1st Dept. 1965] ; Siegel & Connors,......
-
Harris v. Finster, Inc.
...may be subject to certain conditions, including costs and reasonable counsel fees.”]; accord Sheppard v. Charles A. Smith Well Drilling & Water Systems, 102 A.D.2d 919 [3d Dept 1984] [requiring movant to pay reasonable costs and counsel fees due to the delayed amendment]; Mirabella v. Banco......
-
March v. St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church
...amend should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise which directly results from the delay (see, Sheppard v. Smith Well Drilling & Water Systems, 102 A.D.2d 919, 477 N.Y.S.2d 480). CPLR 203 (e) permits the amended pleading to "relate back", for Statute of Limitations purposes, to the......