Daniels v. Empire-Orr, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1989
• Docket Number: EMPIRE-OR,INC
• Citation: 542 N.Y.S.2d 614,151 A.D.2d 370
• Parties: , 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 598 Rebecca DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v., Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 614

542 N.Y.S.2d 614

151 A.D.2d 370, 50 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 598

Rebecca DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.EMPIRE-ORR, INC., Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 22, 1989.

L. Bloom, for plaintiffs-appellants.

R.F. Van Der Waag, Garden City, for defendant-respondent.

Before MURPHY, P.J., and MILONAS, KASSAL, ROSENBERGER and SMITH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about March 10, 1989, which denied plaintiffs-appellants' motion to amend their complaint to add a cause of action for gender-based employment discrimination, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with costs.

The plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action on or about March 4, 1988.The complaint stated 11 causes of action, all of which were predicated on the alleged wrongful termination of plaintiffs Rebecca and Kenneth Daniels' employment with the defendant in violation of employment contracts entered into between the parties.Shortly after discovery commenced, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add a twelfth cause of action on behalf of Rebecca Daniels for gender-based employment discrimination under New York Executive Law, Section 296(1)(a), et seq.

After a hearing the parties were directed to submit supplemental briefs on two issues raised by the defendant in opposition to the motion during oral argument.Defendant asserted that the plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies for the proposed amended cause of action, and questioned whether said cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.Although the plaintiff was given until March 8, 1989, to submit her brief on these issues, the court denied her motion by order dated March 1, 1989 on the ground that she failed "to demonstrate any facts which would substantiate a cause of action for employment discrimination."Consequently, the only issue we decide here is whether the plaintiff's proposed cause of action for gender-based employment discrimination is sufficiently meritorious to grant her leave to amend her original complaint.

The motion court misapplied the result reached by this courtinCrimmins Construction Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 138 A.D.2d 138, 530 N.Y.S.2d 779[1st Dept.1988].In Crimmins, this court reaffirmed the modern practice of motion courts to dispose of unmeritorious claims and defenses subsequently brought into the litigation by way of supplemental pleading rules.(CPLR 3025;seeCrimmins at 141-142, 530 N.Y.S.2d 779.)The standard that a court must employ to achieve this result, however, is demonstrably different from the standards applied to either a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss or a CPLR 3212motion for summary judgment.(Hawkins v. Genesee Place Corp., 139 A.D.2d 433, 527 N.Y.S.2d 22[1st Dept.1988].

The analysis established by this court in East Asiatic Co. v. Corash, 34 A.D.2d 432, 436, 312 N.Y.S.2d 311[1st Dept.1970], begins with a two-pronged test.First, the proponent must allege legally sufficient facts to establish a prima facie cause of action or defense in the proposed amended pleading.If the facts alleged are incongruent with the legal theory relied on by the proponent the proposed amendment must fail as a matter of law.(Goldstein v. Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp., 90 A.D.2d 512, 514, 455 N.Y.S.2d 19[1st Dept.1982];Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 82 A.D.2d 350, 362, 441 N.Y.S.2d 275[2d Dept.1981], affd.56 N.Y.2d 332, 452 N.Y.S.2d 347, 437 N.E.2d 1104[1982].The next step is for the nisi prius court to test the pleading's merit.The merit of a proposed amended pleading must be sustained, however, unless the alleged insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt (East Asiatic Co. v. Corash, supra, 34 A.D.2d at 434, 312 N.Y.S.2d 311).The party opposing the motion to amend, therefore, must overcome a presumption of validity in favor of the moving party, and demonstrate that the facts alleged and relied upon in the moving papers are obviously not reliable or are insufficient.(Brennan v. City of New York,...