Rushmore Recoveries III, LLC v Ouma
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered August 26, 2010, which denied his motion to compel discovery and for leave to amend its answer.
Order (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered August 26, 2010, affirmed, without costs.
In this action brought to collect on a credit card debt, we sustain the denial of defendant's motion for leave to amend his answer inasmuch as the purported amendments improperly sought to "clarify" his affirmative defenses and counterclaims which had already been sufficiently pleaded in the original answer (cf. Longacre Press, Inc. v Polyglycoat Corp., 77 AD2d 864, 865 ; see generally Fulford v Baker Perkins, Inc., 100 AD2d 861 ). In addition, Civil Court properly denied as moot defendant's motion to compel discovery, since the information sought related solely to plaintiff's previously withdrawn breach of contract claim.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur
Decision Date: June 08, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...