Chichilnisky v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y.
2008 NY Slip Op 02221 [49 AD3d 388]
March 13, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Graciela Chichilnisky, Appellant,
v
The Trustees ofColumbia University in the City of New York, Respondent.

[*1]Robert N. Felix, New York City, for appellant.

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York City (Edward A. Brill of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 17, 2007,which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's motion for leave to filea second amended complaint to the extent that it sought to add a claim for punitive damages anda claim relating to events occurring in the 2005-2006 academic year, unanimously affirmed,without costs.

Regardless of whether certain letters exchanged between counsel constituted a bindingstipulation disposing of the issues presented on appeal, the court providently exercised itsdiscretion in denying the branch of plaintiff's motion which sought leave to amend the firstamended complaint to add a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, to the extentshe sought leave to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend wasmade six years after the action was commenced, and after extensive discovery was finallycomplete. Plaintiff failed to offer any reasonable excuse for the extensive delay, which, withrespect to the punitive damages claim, would have prejudiced defendant under the circumstancesof the litigation (see Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20 [2003]; see alsoJablonski v County of Erie, 286 AD2d 927, 928 [2001]).

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court likewise properly exercised its discretion indenying leave to supplement the complaint to assert additional causes of action based on newevents (see Moon v Clear Channel Communications, 307 AD2d 628, 629-630 [2003];Prince v O'Brien, 256 AD2d 208, 211-212 [1998]). Those claims can be determined in anindependent [*2]action, if plaintiff chooses to file one, and weexpress no opinion on the merits of such claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckleyand Acosta, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.