Majority
p. 964Eugene Mathews, Respondent, v Visual Thermoforming, Respondent, and Prescotech a Company of Tennetics, Inc., Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Prescotech A Company of Tennetics, Inc. to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense. When seeking leave to amend a pleading
p. 965
pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), "it is incumbent upon a movant to make 'some evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported’ ” (Mathiesen v Mead, 168 AD2d 736 , 737, quoting Cushman & Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133 , 135). Here, the motion was supported only by an unsworn document of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts. That document was insufficient to warrant the relief sought (see, Santoro v Oppman, 150 AD2d 667 , 668; Bonanni v Straight Arrow Publs., 133 AD2d 585 , 588). In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining issues raised by the parties. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Amended Answer.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.
Cases cited
- Mathiesen v. Mead 168 AD2d 736 at 737 p. 965
- Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. John David, Inc. 25 AD2d 133 at 135 p. 965
- Santoro v. Oppman 150 AD2d 667 at 668 p. 965