From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cerrato v. R.H. Crown Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1977
58 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

June 30, 1977


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered November 8, 1976 in Fulton County, which granted plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint setting forth two additional causes of action in strict tort liability and breach of warranty, and increasing the ad damnum clause from $150,000 to $500,000. CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) provides for amendment of pleadings at any time by leave of court and that such leave shall be freely given, particularly where, as in the instant case, the allegations are based on the same facts, and only additional legal theories of recovery are advanced. Defendant's contention as to the delay in seeking relief is insufficient without a showing of prejudice (Handley v Mirro Aluminum Co., 52 A.D.2d 1029). Furthermore, that the new causes of action might have been barred in a separate action de novo, does not affect the granting of relief. There is a relation back as long as the earlier pleading gives the adverse party sufficient notice of the transactions out of which the new claims arise (CPLR 203, subd [e]; see Palmer v New York City Tr. Auth., 37 A.D.2d 766). The increase in the ad damnum clause was likewise proper in view of the statement of plaintiff's plastic surgeon indicating the severity and permanency of plaintiff's injuries, and absent a showing of prejudice and surprise. We also note, in passing, that the warranty action is based upon personal injuries to the purchaser, a natural person and thus is cognizable under section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It is therefore not prohibited from being maintained in conjunction with an action based on strict tort liability (cf. Potsdam Welding Mach. Co. v Neptune Microfloc, 57 A.D.2d 993; Dickey v Lockport Prestress, 52 A.D.2d 1075). Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cerrato v. R.H. Crown Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1977
58 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Cerrato v. R.H. Crown Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARY CERRATO, Respondent, v. R.H. CROWN CO., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 30, 1977

Citations

58 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Cordice

The defendant has had all the knowledge required to defend either cause of action. The mere fact that the…

Tardi v. Casler-Bladek

Given the foregoing, it is disingenuous at best to argue that St. Mary's did not have notice that the actions…