Citation Numbers： 57 A.D.3d 939, 869 N.Y.2d 800
Filed Date： 12/30/2008
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 11/1/2024
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.