From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madison-Murray Associates v. Perlbinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


We find that the court was within its discretion in permitting plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations of breaches by defendant of the lease between the parties and to seek damages and injunctive relief. Such leave should be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]). An examination of plaintiff's new claims reveals that questions of fact remain as to whether plaintiff's assertions, if true, constitute a breach on defendant's part of the alterations clause of the lease.

The single counterclaim which defendant is, on appeal, seeking leave to bring, was responsive to the new matter included in plaintiff's amended complaint and defendant was not required to seek leave of the court to assert it in its amended answer made pursuant to CPLR 3025 (d) (Garden State Brickface Co. v Stecker, 130 A.D.2d 707, 709). In any case, even if such leave were required, we find that the court erred in concluding that defendant's counterclaim should be precluded as palpably without merit. An examination of defendant's counterclaim reveals that questions of fact remain as to whether defendant's allegations, if true, constitute a breach on plaintiff's part of the alterations clause of the lease.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Madison-Murray Associates v. Perlbinder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Madison-Murray Associates v. Perlbinder

Case Details

Full title:MADISON-MURRAY ASSOCIATES, Respondent, v. BARTON M. PERLBINDER, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Mendrzycki v. Cricchio

CPLR 3211 (e) provides in pertinent part, "[a]ny objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in…

Fox Paine & Co. v. Houston Cas. Co.

The law is well settled that if an amended complaint entirely replaces the prior complaint, a defendant is…