From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seda v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1992
181 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

holding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay where there had been "a dearth of discovery" in the 3 years preceding the motion for leave to amend

Summary of this case from Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. (In re Part 60 RMBS Put-Back Litig.)

Opinion

March 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.).


Although defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) waited more than three years to raise the defense of Statute of Limitations, leave to amend pleadings is to be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935). Plaintiff admits that there has been a dearth of discovery to date. The absence of substantial progress in this matter during the preceding three years indicates that NYCHA's lateness in amending its answer has not prejudiced plaintiff in any significant way.

Supreme Court erroneously relied on Addesso v Shemtob ( 70 N.Y.2d 689), which concerns a defense waived by the failure to raise it in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211 [e]). Unlike Addesso, defendant herein made no pre-answer motion, and its answer therefore remains subject to amendment. The court retains discretion to grant leave to assert the defense of Statute of Limitations in an amended answer, absent prejudice or surprise to the plaintiff (CPLR 3018 [b]; Fahey v County of Ontario, supra).

Three years is an inordinate amount of time in which to amend an answer. However, mere lateness by NYCHA is not a barrier to amendment. Lateness must be coupled with significant prejudice to plaintiff (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:5, at 356). Although plaintiff has demonstrated lateness, in the absence of meaningful discovery plaintiff has demonstrated no prejudice, and leave to amend the answer should have been granted.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Kupferman, J., dissents and would affirm for the reasons stated by Nardelli, J.


Summaries of

Seda v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1992
181 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

holding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay where there had been "a dearth of discovery" in the 3 years preceding the motion for leave to amend

Summary of this case from Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. (In re Part 60 RMBS Put-Back Litig.)

holding a three-year delay, though unreasonable, did not prejudice opposing party because there had been no significant progress on the case in that time

Summary of this case from Goldfarb v. Romano

in Seda v New York City Hous. Auth. (181 AD2d 469, 470 [1st Dept 1992]), where the defendant moved for leave to amend its answer to assert a statute of limitations defense, the Court held: "Three years is an inordinate amount of time in which to amend an answer.

Summary of this case from Rowe v. AEG Live, LLC

In Seda, the First Department reversed the trial court, which had denied the defendant's motion to amend to include a defense based on the statute of limitations.

Summary of this case from Santiago v. New York City Board of Health
Case details for

Seda v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:RAUL SEDA et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 10, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 20

Citing Cases

N.Y. Cent. Ins. Co. v. Berdar Equities, Co.

Under the general rule, "any objection or defense based upon the ground of the statute of limitations is…

New York Cent. Ins. Co. v. Berdar Equities, Co.

Under the general rule, "any objection or defense based upon the ground of the statute of limitations is…