¶1Balancing all relevant factors, and under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint (see CPLR 3025 [b]; 105 [u]; Thomsen v Suffolk County Police Dept., 50 AD3d 1015, 1016-1017 [2008]; Dialcom, LLC v AT & T Corp., 50 AD3d 727 [2008]). Ritter, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.
57 A.D.3d 939
Fitzgerald v. Conroy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 30, 2008
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 2008-12-30
Decided 2008-12-30