AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

JCD FARMS, INC., respondent, v. CARL E. JUUL-NIELSEN, ET AL., appellants.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to substitute JCD Farms, Inc., as the party plaintiff in this action, in the place of the original plaintiff, James Kirvin III (see CPLR 1003; 3025[b]). "`It is well settled that an amendment which would shift a claim from a party without standing to another party who could have asserted that claim in the first instance is proper since such an amendment, by its nature, does not result in surprise or prejudice to the defendants who had prior knowledge of the claim and an opportunity to prepare a proper defense'" (New York State Thruway Auth. v. CBE Contr. Corp., 280 A.D.2d 390, quoting MK W. St. Co. v. Meridien Hotels, 184 A.D.2d 312, 313-314; see Frankart Furniture Staten Is. v. Forest Mall Assocs., 159 A.D.2d 322, 323; Bellini v. Gersalle Realty Corp., 120 A.D.2d 345, 347). The defendants did not show that they would suffer any prejudice if the amendment was granted (see Frankart Furniture Staten Is. v. Forest Mall Assocs., supra).

The defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JCD FARMS, INC. v. JUUL-NIELSEN
(Dec 16, 2002)