AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

DOREEN CARUSO, Respondent, v. TED HOYER CO., INC., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 19, 1980, which denied its motion for leave to serve an amended answer so as to plead the affirmative defenses of a lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant and the running of the applicable Statute of Limitations. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Defendant shall serve the amended answer within 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. Special Term denied defendant leave to amend solely on the ground that defendant did not show good cause why the procedural requirements of CPLR 3211 were not followed. Absent a showing of prejudice resulting directly from the delay, denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion (see Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; Lermit Plastics Co. v Lauman Co., 40 A.D.2d 680). Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CARUSO v. TED HOYER CO., INC
(Dec 22, 1980)