Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 8584N
Decision Date | 05 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Index 654481/15,8584N |
Citation | 170 A.D.3d 416,93 N.Y.S.3d 564 (Mem) |
Parties | David ESHAGHIAN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Marokh ESHAGHIAN, et al., Defendants–Respondents, First American Title Insurance Company, Nominal Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Malcolm S. Taub of counsel), for appellant.
Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP, Lake Success (Jordan M. Freundlich of counsel), for respondents.
Plaintiff's proposed new claim arises from the same facts (indeed appears in the same agreement) that formed the basis of the prior claims and counterclaims. Thus, while defendants emphasize plaintiff's long delay in seeking to amend, they have not shown that they are surprised or prejudiced by the amendment (see Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 926 N.Y.S.2d 98 [1st Dept. 2011] ).
On its face, the proposed amendment is not "palpably devoid of merit" (see Cruz v. Brown, 129 A.D.3d 455, 456, 11 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2015] ). It flows logically from the prior rulings in this case as to the validity of the Letter Agreement and the invalidity of the so-called "Side Agreement."
The prior summary judgment ruling in this action does not constitute a bar to amendment of the complaint on the ground of res judicata, which is applicable only to a judgment in a prior action (see Hudson–Spring Partnership, L.P. v. P+M Design Consultants, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 419, 976 N.Y.S.2d 57 [1st Dept. 2013] ). There is no violation of the law of the case doctrine, because the proposed amendment is consistent with, rather than contrary to, the prior rulings in this action.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yong Jun Li v. A.Z.N. Realty LLC
...to amend the complaint or bill of particulars; defendant's speculation as to potential prejudice is insufficient. Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 170 A.D.3d 416, 416 (1st Dep't 2019); Flowers v. 73rd Townhouse LLC, 149 A.D.3d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 2017); Spitzer v. Schussel, 48 A.D.3d 233, 234 (1st D......
-
Brummer v. Wey
...denial of permission to amend the amended complaint; their speculation as to potential prejudice is insufficient. Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 170 A.D.3d 416, 416 (1st Dep't 2019); Flowers v. 73rd Townhouse LLC, 149 A.D.3d 420, 421 (1st Dep't 2017); Spitzer v. Schussel, 48 A.D.3d 233, 234 (1st D......
-
Quadriad Realty Partners, LLC v. Wilbee Corp.
...effort to reinstate previously-dismissed claims, which is not a proper use of a motion to amend"); cf. Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 170 A.D.3d 416, 416 (1st Dep't March 5, 2019) (granting leave to amend where "proposed amendment is not palpably . . . devoid of merit" and "flows logically from th......
- Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Guzmarino, 8585N