In 1934 Bedford, LLC v Gutman Weiss, P.C., 2023 NY Slip Op 04558 [2d Dept Sept. 13, 2023], the court held that the client’s complaint could not be amended where the proposed amendment was “palpably insufficient or patently without merit,” holding:
Although leave to amend a pleading should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see id.), a motion for leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Buccigrossi v. Glatman, 214 A.D.3d 696, 183 N.Y.S.3d 317; Silverman v. Potruch & Daab, LLC, 142 A.D.3d 660, 661, 37 N.Y.S.3d 143; Pedote v. Kelly, 124 A.D.3d 855, 856, 3 N.Y.S.3d 56; Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 229, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238). “A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” (Gitlin v. Chirinkin, 60 A.D.3d 901, 902, 875 N.Y.S.2d 585; see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cuesta, 208 A.D.3d 821, 822, 172 N.Y.S.3d 638; Johnson v. Ortiz Transp., LLC, 205 A.D.3d 696, 697, 165 N.Y.S.3d 735).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently without merit.
#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2023 Richard A. Klass