TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Oak Point Industrial Park v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance

Oak Point Industrial Park v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

Oak Point Indus. Park v. Mass. Bay Ins., 65 A.D.2d 552 (1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 2, 1978
Citations
65 A.D.2d 552408 N.Y.S.2d 9581978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action on an insurance policy, defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 15, 1978, which denied its motion to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense of fraud and misrepresentation. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, on condition that appellant’s attorney pay plaintiff $750 within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon; in the event such condition is not complied with, then order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant’s time to serve an amended answer is extended until 14 days after compliance by its attorney with the above-mentioned condition. Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct further pretrial *553 discovery, which shall proceed as expeditiously as possible. Leave to amend an answer to plead a potentially meritorious defense should be freely given in the absence of prejudice. Here, no serious prejudice has been demonstrated by plaintiff sufficient to defeat the motion (see Dransñeld v Eastern Seaboard Warehouse Corp., 43 AD2d 569 ). The necessity of a motion to amend, however, was caused by an inexcusably inadequate preparation of the defense until the eve of trial, and appropriate conditions for allowing the amendment have therefore been imposed. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York138 A.D.2d 138 (1988) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York138 A.D.2d 138 (1988) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dransfield v. Eastern Seaboard Warehouse Corp., 43 A.D.2d 569 (1973) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list