You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Edmunds v. National Grange Mutual Insurance

Citations: 81 A.D.2d 715; 439 N.Y.S.2d 470; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11267

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 22, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

An appeal was made regarding a Supreme Court order from September 29, 1980, in Albany County, which denied a motion by the defendant National Grange Mutual Insurance Company to amend its answer and add cross claims against co-defendants Arnold Applebaum Agency, Inc. and Irwin Applebaum. The requested amendment occurred shortly before trial and over three and a half years after the issues were joined. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Special Term's refusal, particularly due to the lack of justification for the significant delay. The order was affirmed, with costs awarded, and all judges except Weiss concurred.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amendment of Pleadings

Application: The court considered whether the defendant could amend its answer to include cross claims against co-defendants shortly before trial.

Reasoning: An appeal was made regarding a Supreme Court order from September 29, 1980, in Albany County, which denied a motion by the defendant National Grange Mutual Insurance Company to amend its answer and add cross claims against co-defendants Arnold Applebaum Agency, Inc. and Irwin Applebaum.

Award of Costs

Application: The affirmation of the order included an award of costs, indicating that the appellants were required to cover certain expenses due to the appeal.

Reasoning: The order was affirmed, with costs awarded, and all judges except Weiss concurred.

Discretion of the Court

Application: The court's decision to deny the amendment was upheld on the basis that there was no abuse of discretion, given the timing and lack of justification for the delay.

Reasoning: The court found no abuse of discretion in the Special Term's refusal, particularly due to the lack of justification for the significant delay.