Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
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
Attorney(S)

FRANK FAHEY et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO et al., Defendants, and SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ONTARIO, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, appellant's motion for leave to serve an amended answer granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Leave to amend the pleadings "shall be freely given" absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay. (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Sindle v New York City Tr. Auth., 33 N.Y.2d 293, 296-297.) Since the respondents cannot claim here such prejudice or surprise, the court below abused its discretion as a matter of law in denying appellant's motion to amend the answer to plead the Statute of Limitations. (Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 406.)

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FAHEY v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO
(Jun 15, 1978)