Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion for leave to serve an amended answer. The appellants did not offer a sufficient excuse for failing to make this motion until almost nine years after serving their original answer in 1996. Moreover, the defendants' prior admissions contradict at least one of the allegations set out in their proposed amended...
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.
