Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty 225 A.D.2d 1054

← Cases

Hanover Insurance v. Finnerty

225 A.D.2d 1054 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1996-03-08 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1054
Hanover Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Philip L. Hottot, Appellant, v Susan M. Finnerty, Respondent.
[639 NYS2d 433]
p. 1055
The court properly denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action for implied indemnification. A motion to amend the complaint should be denied where, as here, the proposed amendment lacks merit (see, Goldstein v Barco of Cal., 109 AD2d 817 , 818); plaintiff’s remedy is subrogation, not indemnification (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Regional Tr. Serv., 79 AD2d 858 , 859). Thus, we modify the order on appeal by denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the complaint. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.