You are here: / / WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COUR...

WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT.

The Second Department determined defendant doctor in this medical malpractice action should have been allowed to amend his answer to add the defense of discharge in bankruptcy. The court noted that even where a defense is waived pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) it can be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to 3025(b):

Even when a defense is waived under CPLR 3211(e), “it can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), as long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, and is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we find that [defendant's] affirmative defense of discharge in bankruptcy is neither patently insufficient nor palpably devoid of merit, and there would be little or no prejudice resulting from any delay in granting leave to amend his answer to add this affirmative defense … . Dixon v Chang, 2016 NY Slip Op 01797, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT)/AMENDED ANSWER (WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT)/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (WAIVED DEFENSE CAN BE INTERPOSED IN AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT)

You might also like
EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM AND PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition Explained
Town Has Duty to Defend Former Town Clerk Accused of Sexual Harassment Within the Scope of Employment
Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)
Village Did Not Have Authority to Sell Village Land Dedicated to Public Use (Public Roads) to Satisfy Property Tax Liens
EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATEMENTS MADE BY ATTORNEY IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY... EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED BAD ACTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR HARMLESS...