You are here: / / Leave to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted—Criteria Expla...

Leave to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint. Leave to amend should only be denied if the added causes of action are patently insufficient or devoid of merit.  Defendant would suffer no prejudice or surprise:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Under this standard, a party seeking leave to amend a pleading need not make an evidentiary showing of merit … , and leave to amend will be granted unless such insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt … . * * * …[The] proposed causes of action are neither patently insufficient nor palpably devoid of merit. Moreover, the parties against whom those causes of action are sought to be asserted will not suffer undue prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the plaintiff’s delay in seeking to amend the complaint … . Stein v Doukas, 2015 NY Slip Op 04115, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT A MORTGAGE IS MERELY INSURED BY HUD OR THE FHA DOES NOT MAKE THE BANK WHICH HOLDS THE MORTGAGE AN ASSIGNEE OF A FEDERAL AGENCY SUCH THAT NEW YORK’S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY; A BANK IS NOT AN ASSIGNEE OF HUD OR THE FHA IF IT WAS NOT ASSIGNED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE THE INSURED MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Elements of Civil and Criminal Contempt Explained
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Village Immune from Suit Alleging Negligence of Ambulance Personnel Who Responded to a 911 Call
No Probable Cause to Search Car Interior After Occupants Were Out of the Car and Patted Down

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action Did... Inadequate Excuse for Delay In Answering Complaint—Motion to Vacate Default...