Case ID: ad2d_197/html/0892-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aaron B. Kleinman, Respondent, v Edward Wider, Respondent, and Dorothy Namulik et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Edward Wider, Respondent, v Dorothy Namulik et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
    [604 NYS2d 857]
   —Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Inasmuch as the depositions of the parties have not yet been taken, Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendants Namuliks’ cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renew at the close of discovery (see, CPLR 3212 [f]). Further, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff Wider to amend his complaint to include Stanley Namulik as a party. Leave to amend shall be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]; Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405, rearg dismissed 45 NY2d 966). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.