Herrick v. Second Cuthouse, Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Hickey v. Hutton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Barbour v. Hospital for Special Surgery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Matter of 425 Park Ave. Co. v. Fin. Adm'r of the City of New York (N.Y. 1986)
- Radjeva v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- August Constr. Group, Inc. v. DeGroat (New York Supreme Court 2023)
- 205 Assoc, LLC v. Roman (Civil Court of the City of New York 2017)
- 1515 Macombs, LLC v. Jackson (Civil Court of the City of New York 2015)
- Carriero v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Carriero v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Schaefer v. Town of Victor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Oursler v. Brennan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- O'Gara v. Alacci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Sayers v. Albicocco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (N.Y. 1999)
- Romero v. Romero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Robinson v. June (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- Norwood v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Fogal v. Steinfeld (New York Supreme Court 1994)
- Strassner v. Saleem (New York Supreme Court 1993)
- Johnson v. Plotkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New York (N.Y. 1989)
- Texaco Inc. v. Synergy Group Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld (N.Y. 1987)
- Sims v. Manley (N.Y. 1987)
- Weinberg v. Hertz Corp. (N.Y. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Exercising their discretion, the courts below granted defendant’s motion to amend its answer to include the defenses of setoff and apportionment. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to this court and certified the following question: “Was the order of this court, dated April 30,1984 properly made?” We cannot say that the proposed defenses plainly lacked merit or that a showing of prejudice to plaintiff in allowing the amendment had been made (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, C3025:6, p 477; C3025:ll, p 481). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion as a matter of law in permitting amendment of the answer. In the absence of such abuse, this court has no power to review the grant of the discretionary remedy. Hence, the only remaining issue presented by the question certified is whether the Appellate Division had the power to grant the requested relief (Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031). We conclude that it had this power, and pass on no other issue.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.