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
Extension for Service of Complaint After Statute of Limitations Had Run Properly Granted in Exercise of Discretion
CITIBANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY TO COLLECT A CREDIT CARD DEBT.
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER OF MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS THREE-CAR REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Intervention Described
FAILURE TO MENTION INADEQUATE LIGHTING IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT DEVELOPED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZING HER AND THEREFORE 20 POINTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERD RISK FACTOR 7 INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN COOK (SECOND DEPT).

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...