Case ID: ad2d_51/html/0790-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(February 23, 1976)
    Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant, v William J. Hambly et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.)
   In an action inter alia to set aside a conveyance of real estate, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 29, 1975, which denied its motion for leave to amend its complaint. Order modified by adding thereto, after the word "denied”, the following: "except insofar as it pertains to the amendment of the first cause of action and to the addition of a sixth cause of action, and motion granted to that extent.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff’s proposed sixth cause of action, for reasonable attorneys’ fees, is closely related to the allegations in the original complaint and, since there has been ho showing of prejudice to defendants, leave to amend the complaint should have been granted at least to that extent (see CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Lampman v Cairo Cent. School Dist, 47 AD2d 794). East Asiatic Co. v Corash (34 AD2d 432) does not dictate a different result since the proposed new cause of action does indeed state a cause of action. Since plaintiff should have been permitted to add a new cause of action for attorneys’ fees, it is reasonable to allow it to amend the first cause of action with respect to the so-called "minor changes” made therein. However, Special Term properly denied plaintiff’s motion insofar as it sought (1) to change the amount of damages demanded pursuant to its fifth cause of action and (2) to add a new cause of action for punitive damages. No reason was given by plaintiff for its proposed change in the amount of damages sought. Absent a showing of why the amount of damages demanded should be changed, Special Term was well within its discretionary powers in denying leave to amend in this respect. The subject of punitive damages is a matter for the Judge’s charge at the trial, dependent upon the circumstances shown in the proof (cf. Knibbs v Wagner, 14 AD2d 987). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.