New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PIXEL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-009-015, Claim No. 91026, Motion No. M-64660


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to amend its claim to assert additional causes of action was granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-009-015
Claimant(s):
PIXEL INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, INC.
Claimant short name:
PIXEL
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
91026
Motion number(s):
M-64660
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
HARVEY AND MUMFORD
BY: Brian F. Mumford, Esq.,Of Counsel.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Timothy P. Mulvey, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
April 18, 2002
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order granting claimant leave to amend its claim.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit of Dennis Krugler, Affidavit of Brian F. Mumford, Esq., with Exhibits 1,2,3


Memorandum of Law in Support 4

This claim, seeking damages for breach of contract, was filed with the Court on January 27, 1995, after claimant had sought and obtained permission to serve and file a late claim.[1]

Claimant now seeks to amend this claim by asserting new causes of action alleging misrepresentation, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and also seeks to set forth in greater detail the breach of contract claims.

Pursuant to CPLR Rule 3025(b), and § 206.7(b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims, a party may amend pleadings at any time with Court approval, which shall be freely given. It is well settled that in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom, leave to amend pleadings should be granted (McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755).

In this case, the new causes of action which claimant seeks to add are based upon the same facts and documents which formed the basis of the original claim. It does not appear, therefore, that there would be any prejudice or surprise whatsoever to the defendant in allowing claimant to serve and file its amended claim. Furthermore, no objections have been raised by the defendant, which has not submitted any papers in opposition to this application.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-64660 is hereby GRANTED, and claimant is hereby directed to serve and file its amended claim by regular mail, within 30 days of the filing date of this decision and order. Defendant shall then have 40 days from the date of service of the amended claim to serve and file its amended answer.


April 18, 2002
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] See Decision and Order to Motion No. M-49795, dated December 16, 1994 (I. Margolis, J).