Opinion
16418 Index No. 24877/18E Case No. 2022-01314
10-13-2022
Laury Vasquez GUZMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. AMERICARE, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Does # 1–10, Defendants.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Kevin J. O'Connor of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of William Coudert Rand, New York (William C. Rand of counsel), for respondent.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Kevin J. O'Connor of counsel), for appellants.
Law Office of William Coudert Rand, New York (William C. Rand of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Gonza´lez, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2022, which denied defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to the first amended class action complaint to include an affirmative defense asserting additional constitutional defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants sought to add an affirmative defense asserting that the class, as defined, violated their due process rights. The proposed defense, however, was in clear contravention of this Court's prior determination that plaintiff was entitled to class certification ( Guzman v. Americare, Inc., 202 A.D.3d 504, 504, 158 N.Y.S.3d 829 [1st Dept. 2022], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1156, 174 N.Y.S.3d 353, 195 N.E.3d 60 [2022] ). Thus, the proposed defense is patently devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co. Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 499, 901 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Moreover, plaintiff would be prejudiced if defendants were permitted to challenge the class certification again at this late stage in the litigation (see Kocourek v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 A.D.3d 502, 505, 925 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.