You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE...

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend a reply to a counterclaim to add the statute-of-limitations affirmative defense should have been granted, noting that mere lateness is not an adequate ground for denial of a motion to amend. The court also noted that defendant’s failure to oppose the motion demonstrated a lack of prejudice:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading ‘are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” (… see CPLR 3025[b]). “The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion” … . “The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” … .

Here, the record reflects that the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit. Moreover, while the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) was made more than eight months after its original verified reply, “‘[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . In this case, having failed to oppose the motion, [defendant] failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating any prejudice or surprise. Toiny, LLC v Rahim, 2023 NY Slip Op 01702, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Motions to amend pleadings should rarely be denied. Mere lateness in moving to amend is not an adequate reason for denial.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ZONE OF DANGER THEORY OF LIABILITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF THE INJURED PARTY; PETITIONERS’ CHILDREN WITNESSED THE FATAL INJURY TO ANOTHER STUDENT WHO WAS NOT RELATED; PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A LAWSUIT ALLEGING NONCONSENSUAL SEXUAL TOUCHING PURSUANT TO THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT (CPLR 214-J) NEED NOT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S INTIMATE PARTS WERE TOUCHED BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF WAS TOUCHED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFORDED THE DEFENDANT SEXUAL GRATIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).
Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because the Rejection Was Not Accompanied by an Adequate Description of the Defect—Supreme Court Properly Ignored Defect Because there Was No Prejudice to Plaintiffs
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PROPER VENUE FOR TWO LAWSUITS JOINED FOR TRIAL IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST LAWSUIT WAS FILED.
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (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

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING... WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT...