McCaskey, Davies & Associates, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 59 N.Y.2d 755, 463 N.Y.S.2d 434, 450 N.E.2d 240, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3104

Decision Date: 5/11/1983

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: McCaskey, Davies & Associates, Inc. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 463 N.Y.S.2d 434, 450 N.E.2d 240, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3104 (1983)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1983

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 188 decisions

188

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.145

N.Y. Sup. Ct.12

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.7

N.Y. App. Term2

N.Y. App. Term.2

N.Y. Ct. Cl.2

Most recently cited by10

2026Bohlen v. Salamon N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2026Cosmopolitan Assoc. II, LLC v. Milan Civ. Ct. NYC, Queens Cty.
2026321-323-325 W. 42nd St. LLC v. Hyeon Ki Hong (PDF) Civ. Ct. NYC, NY Cty.
2026Monadnock Constr., Inc v. Southwest Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co. N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
2026Mercer v. Kuo N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2026Goldstein v. Goldstein N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2026KB v. CP N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty.
2026Joe NYC Cluster LLC v. Rodriguez N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
2026Philip v. New York Foundling N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025English v. Brady N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

McCaskey, Davies and Associates, Inc., Appellant, v New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joan M. Genchi and Frederic Block for appellant.
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (William Barish of counsel), for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reversing so much of it as granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and by denying defendant’s motion for that relief, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Leave to amend the pleadings “shall be freely given” absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935). Here the amendment sought to be pleaded was failure to comply with the contractual time limitation requiring commencement of action within six months of termination. There being nothing in the papers indicative of prejudice to or surprise of plaintiff, it was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for Trial Term to deny defendant’s motion to amend its answer.

It was, however, error for the Appellate Division to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Each party claimed the other had breached the contract; neither gave formal notice of termination. Whether the action was timely commenced turns, therefore, on whether in fact the contract was terminated and, if so, when. These questions present triable issues of fact barring summary judgment.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order modified, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.