You are here: / / Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a...

Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a Right Lost in the Interim Between the Original Answer and the Application to Amend

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Environmental) should have been allowed to amend its answer to deny its employee (Tompkins) was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident at issue occurred. The court explained that plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the amendment, as the term “prejudice” is to be understood in this context:

A proper showing of prejudice must be “traceable not simply to the new matter sought to be added, but also to the fact that it is only now being added. There must be some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add” … . Plaintiff has made no such showing. In her opposition before the motion court, plaintiff asserted that she would be prejudiced by the amendment because Environmental “would be vicariously liable for the acts of [Thomas] Tompkins,” if Tompkins was operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. This is not the kind of significant prejudice necessary to deny an amendment to the pleading, as plaintiff would suffer the same “prejudice” if Environmental had raised its scope-of-employment defense in its initial answer. Williams v Tompkins, 2015 NY Slip Op 07598, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

You might also like
EACH TIME PLAINTIFF’S MARKETING DIRECTOR ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY IN WHICH THE DIRECTOR HAD AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE WRONG UNDER THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS NEGLIGENT-HIRING ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL WHICH EMPLOYED A DOCTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND OTHER PATIENTS SOUGHT DISCOVERY; THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER ASSAULTED PATIENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; PARTY STATEMENTS WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE QUALITY ASSURANCE PRIVILEGE; AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE NAMES OF THE DOCTOR’S COWORKERS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN COLLISION CASE WHERE THERE WAS A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT, DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DEMONSTRATED, USING FACTS IN THE RECORD, THAT DEFENDANT BICYCLIST HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WAS TRAVELLING AT A REASONABLE SPEED, AND WAS NOT ABLE TO AVOID THE COLLISION WHEN PLAINTIFF STEPPED OFF THE CURB; PLANTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION TO THE CONTRARY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
INABILITY TO IMPOSE THE PROMISED SENTENCE REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS WARRANTING STRIKING ITS ANSWER (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN PETITIONER-STUDENT’S EXPULSION; THE EXPULSION PENALTY WAS VACATED AND THE STUDENT WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause... Criteria for Whether Public Employer/Employee Dispute Is Arbitrable Explain...