You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE...
, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint, which originally stemmed from the alleged encroachment of defendant’s pipes (since removed), should have been granted, despite the passage of six years (during which a default judgment was vacated):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint. Permission to amend a pleading should be “freely given” (CPLR 3025[b] …), where the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that the amendment would prejudice or surprise the opposing party … . Mere lateness is not a basis for denying an amendment; ” [i]t must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment … .

Here, notwithstanding the lengthy gap in time between the commencement of the action and the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, the defendant has made no showing that it was surprised by the new allegations or would be significantly prejudiced … . Moreover, some portion of that delay is attributable to the defendant’s effort to vacate its default and the parties’ subsequent motion practice and negotiations, and there is no contention that discovery has been concluded … .

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. “No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)'” … , and “a court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless [the] insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” … . The allegations of the proposed amendment and the submissions in support of it adequately set forth the requisite elements for causes of action alleging private nuisance and trespass … . Krakovski v Stavros Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

You might also like
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT OBJECTION TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Has Power to Issue Judicial Consent to Settlement Nunc Pro Tunc Where Workers’ Compensation Carrier Failed to Timely Seek Consent to a Third-Party Settlement from the Special Funds Conservation Commission
NO APPEAL LIES FROM DICTA (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO ADVISE DEFENDANT (1) THAT THE STATE WOULD BEAR THE COSTS OF AN APPEAL IF THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT AFFORD THEM; AND (2) THE WAIVER DID NOT ENCOMPASS THE LOSS OF RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND THE WAIVER OF COSTS, FEES, AND EXPENSES; IN ADDITION THE JUDGE DID NOT ASCERTAIN WHETHER DEFFENDANT READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE WRITTEN WAIVER FORM, OR WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD DISCUSSED THE WAIVER WITH COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT). ​
Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ATTORNEY WHO HIRED AN ASSOCIATE WHO PREVIOUSLY WORKED AS A PARALEGAL AT THE FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED A NECESSARY PARTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE... DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT MEET...