Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 9846N.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2006 NY Slip Op 09392,35 A.D.3d 266,825 N.Y.S.2d 480
Docket Number9846N.
PartiesJOSE R. GUZMAN, Respondent, v. MIKE'S PIPE YARD, Appellant.
Decision Date14 December 2006
35 A.D.3d 266
825 N.Y.S.2d 480
2006 NY Slip Op 09392
JOSE R. GUZMAN, Respondent,
v.
MIKE'S PIPE YARD, Appellant.
9846N.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Decided December 14, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 12, 2006, which denied defendant's motion to amend its answer to assert a new affirmative defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.


Defendant's unsupported motion was insufficient as a matter of law. Motions to amend pleadings are to be liberally granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), absent prejudice or surprise, but such leave should "not be granted upon mere request, without appropriate substantiation" (Brennan v City of New York, 99 AD2d 445, 446 [1984]). These moving papers consisted solely of a four-page attorney's affirmation, without an affidavit of a person having personal knowledge, or any other evidence of a viable defense, and thus lacked probative value (see Marinelli v Shifrin, 260 AD2d 227, 229 [1999]). Defendant's attempt to salvage an inadequate set of moving papers by advancing new arguments in its reply affirmation was improper and not entitled to any consideration by the motion court (see Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v Morse Shoe Co., 218 AD2d 624 [1995]).

Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 19, 2014
    ...admissible evidence. See Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 695, 926 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1st Dep't 2011) ; Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 (1st Dep't 2006) ; Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d at 210, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285. While Genesis Holding need not establis......
  • Glynos v. Dorizas, Index No. 113984/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...2 defenses through admissible evidence. See Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 695 (1st Dept 2011); Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 266 (1st Dep't 2006); Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d at 210. While defendant need not establish at this stage that the proposed defe......
  • McBride v. KPMG Int'l, 650632/09
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 19, 2016
    ...plaintiffs leave to amend since plaintiffs failed to submit “appropriate substantiation” (see 135 A.D.3d 581 Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 1st Dept.2006 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Even before the amendment to CPLR 3025(b) took effect on January ......
  • CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 2010
    ...unsupported by any evidentiary showing, such as an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts ( see Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2006] ). Several also lacked merit as a matter of law. The claimed defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, the contractu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 19, 2014
    ...admissible evidence. See Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 695, 926 N.Y.S.2d 98 (1st Dep't 2011) ; Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 (1st Dep't 2006) ; Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d at 210, 664 N.Y.S.2d 285. While Genesis Holding need not establis......
  • Glynos v. Dorizas, Index No. 113984/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...2 defenses through admissible evidence. See Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 695 (1st Dept 2011); Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 266 (1st Dep't 2006); Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp., 244 A.D.2d at 210. While defendant need not establish at this stage that the proposed defe......
  • McBride v. KPMG Int'l, 650632/09
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 19, 2016
    ...plaintiffs leave to amend since plaintiffs failed to submit “appropriate substantiation” (see 135 A.D.3d 581 Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 1st Dept.2006 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Even before the amendment to CPLR 3025(b) took effect on January ......
  • CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 19, 2010
    ...unsupported by any evidentiary showing, such as an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts ( see Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2006] ). Several also lacked merit as a matter of law. The claimed defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, the contractu......
  • 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