You are here: / / Abuse of Discretion to Grant Motion for Leave to Amend Answer On the Eve...

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Motion for Leave to Amend Answer On the Eve of Trial

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer, which was made long after the action had been certified for trial:

While leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]), a motion for leave to amend is committed to the broad discretion of the court … . “In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated [and] whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered” … . Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .

“However, where the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent, and cautious'” … . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … . Yong Soon Oh v Hua Jin, 2015 NY Slip Op 00362, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL (PARKING LOT RAMP); THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS WITH THE DMV OR USPS WAS NOT “AFFIRMATIVE CONDUCT” DESIGNED TO AVOID SERVICE OF PROCESS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO THE 2005 DISONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE ACTION COMMENCED IN 2015 TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT SUIT CONCERNING SHARING ATTORNEY’S FEES, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO THE ATTORNEY’S FIRM (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE TO ADMIT IMPROPERLY SOUGHT CONCESSIONS THAT WENT TO HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed... Father’s Recording of Defendant’s Berating and Threatening Father’s...