From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gallagher v. 109-02 Development, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 23, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2014-10930 Index No. 27449/11.

03-23-2016

Brian GALLAGHER, et al., respondents, v. 109–02 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.

Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for appellant. Edward J. Troy, Greenlawn, N.Y. (Patrick J. Morganelli of counsel), for respondents.


Andrea G. Sawyers, Melville, N.Y. (Scott W. Driver of counsel), for appellant.

Edward J. Troy, Greenlawn, N.Y. (Patrick J. Morganelli of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 109–02 Development, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated November 22, 2013, as granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to amend the pleadings.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025[b] ), provided the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Simon–Erdan, 67 A.D.3d 750, 751, 888 N.Y.S.2d 599; see United Fairness, Inc. v. Town of Woodbury, 113 A.D.3d 754, 755, 979 N.Y.S.2d 365). The “merits of a proposed amendment to a pleading will not be examined unless the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” (Sample v. Levada, 8 A.D.3d 465, 467–468, 779 N.Y.S.2d 96).

Here, the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and they did not prejudice or surprise the defendants, since they merely sought to add new theories of recovery, without alleging new or different facts. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the cross motion for leave to amend (see id. at 467–468, 779 N.Y.S.2d 96).

We do not address the plaintiffs' argument made in Point I of their brief, since the plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal from the order dated November 22, 2013 (see generally Matter of Margary v. Martinez, 118 A.D.3d 1004, 1006, 989 N.Y.S.2d 78).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gallagher v. 109-02 Development, LLC

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 23, 2016
137 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Gallagher v. 109-02 Development, LLC

Case Details

Full title:Brian GALLAGHER, et al., respondents, v. 109–02 DEVELOPMENT, LLC…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 23, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2050
26 N.Y.S.3d 888