Court Opinion

ID: 5764677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 17:20:32.439007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:37.137851
License: Public Domain

Balancing 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.