Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005).
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying its cross motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims because General Business Law § 340 does not apply to this case. We disagree. General Business Law § 340 "may be used to defend against...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.