Opinion
2011-12-20
Lew NUSSBERG, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gary TATINTSIAN, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, New York (Gregory A. Clarick of counsel), for appellants. *704 Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP, New York (Frank J. Franzino, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, New York (Gregory A. Clarick of counsel), for appellants. *704 Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP, New York (Frank J. Franzino, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to amend their answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.
Defendants' proposed counterclaims alleging that plaintiff knowingly sold forged artworks to defendants, resulting in lost profits and other damages, do not plainly lack merit ( MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 500, 901 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2010] ). Further, plaintiff fails to show that the proposed amendments would result in prejudice to him that could have been avoided had defendants raised the counterclaims in their original answer ( see Murray v. City of New York, 51 A.D.3d 502, 503, 858 N.Y.S.2d 131, lv. denied, 11 N.Y.3d 703, 864 N.Y.S.2d 390, 894 N.E.2d 654 [2008] ).