Eshaghian v. Eshaghian, 8584N

Decision Date05 March 2019
Docket NumberIndex 654481/15,8584N
Citation170 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.
CourtNew 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.

Acosta, P.J., Richter, Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Moulton, JJ.

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
5 cases
  • Yong Jun Li v. A.Z.N. Realty LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 24, 2019
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • September 19, 2019
    ...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.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 6, 2020
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 5, 2019
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT