HSBC Bank v. Picarelli

• Decision Date: 30 October 2013
• Citation: 110 A.D.3d 1031,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07011,974 N.Y.S.2d 90
• Parties: HSBC BANK, etc., appellant, v. Maryann PICARELLI, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 1031

974 N.Y.S.2d 90

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 07011

HSBC BANK, etc., appellant,

v.Maryann PICARELLI, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 30, 2013.

Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Joseph F. Batista of counsel), for appellant.

David M. Harrison, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered August 8, 2012, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Maryann Picarelli and Margaret Rappold which was for leave to serve and file an amended answer to assert a defense based on lack of standing.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025[b] ), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit ( see Spodek v. Neiss, 104 A.D.3d 758, 961 N.Y.S.2d 251;Padin v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 614, 615, 959 N.Y.S.2d 274;Nisari v. Ramjohn, 85 A.D.3d 987, 990, 927 N.Y.S.2d 358;Consolidated Payroll Servs., Inc. v. Berk, 18 A.D.3d 415, 794 N.Y.S.2d 410). The decision of whether to allow an amendment is committed “almost entirely to the [motion] court's discretion” ( Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 405, 401 N.Y.S.2d 773, 372 N.E.2d 560 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Edenwald Contr. Co. v. New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164;Aronov v. Regency Gardens Apt. Corp., 15 A.D.3d 513, 514, 789 N.Y.S.2d 684). “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” ( Edenwald Contracting Co. v. New York, 60 N.Y.2d at 959, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dimura, 104 A.D.3d 796, 796, 962 N.Y.S.2d 304;U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sharif, 89 A.D.3d 723, 724, 933 N.Y.S.2d 293;Rodriguez v. Panjo, 81 A.D.3d 805, 806, 916 N.Y.S.2d 239).

Although the defendants Maryann Picarelli and Margaret Rappold (hereinafter together the homeowner defendants) waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense in their initial answer ( seeCPLR 3211[e] ), this defense can nevertheless be interposed by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay ( see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sharif, 89 A.D.3d at 724, 933 N.Y.S.2d 293;Ricchezza v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 79 A.D.3d 998, 914 N.Y.S.2d 903;Complete Mgt., Inc. v. Rubenstein, 74 A.D.3d 722, 723, 903 N.Y.S.2d 439;Nunez v. Mousouras, 21 A.D.3d...