TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland

Randy D. Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Joseph D. Ramundo, Third-Party

Ramundo v. Town of Guilderland, 95 A.D.2d 891 (1983)
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
June 2, 1983
Citations
95 A.D.2d 891464 N.Y.S.2d 271983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18857

Opinion of the Court

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered November 3, 1982, in Albany County, which granted defendant Town of Guilderland’s motion for permission to amend its answer. In this action, plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Settles Hill Road, a public highway owned and maintained by defendant town. In their notice of claim, served on September 22,1981, plaintiffs allege that defendant town’s negligent maintenance of Settles Hill Road was the proximate cause of the subject accident. A summons and complaint were served on defendant town on February 11,1982, and on or about February 25, 1982, an answer and counterclaim were served. *892 Thereafter, defendant town served a third-party complaint. An answer to the third-party complaint was served on July 30, 1982. By motion dated August 11, 1982, defendant town applied, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]), for permission to amend its answer in order to allege the additional defense of failure to provide prior written notice of the alleged defective road condition. Special Term granted this motion and plaintiffs commenced this appeal. A review of the record fails to support plaintiffs’ contention that Special Term abused its discretion by allowing the amendment. Accordingly, the order must be affirmed (see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, pars 3025.11, 3025.14). Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1984: 119842026peak 1984 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sheppard v. Charles A. Smith Well Drilling & Water Systems102 A.D.2d 919 (1984)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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