Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. Inc. v. Reid
| Decision Date | 14 June 2011 |
| Citation | 925 N.Y.S.2d 359,85 A.D.3d 880,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05242 |
| Parties | MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., etc., et al., respondents,v.Mavis REID, et al., appellants, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERENnebe & Associates, P.C., Williamsburg, N.Y. (Okechukwu Valentine Nnebe of counsel), for appellants.Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Andrew Morganstern of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to cancel and expunge a mortgage satisfaction erroneously made and recorded, the defendants Mavis Reid and Shen–Reka Clarke appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 6, 2010, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated May 6, 2008, granting their unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Mavis Reid and Shen–Reka Clarke (hereinafter together the homeowners) for leave to amend their answer to assert additional counterclaims. Leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted ( see CPLR 3025[b] ). However, when the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient to state a cause of action or is patently devoid of merit, leave to amend should be denied ( see Scofield v. DeGroodt, 54 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 864 N.Y.S.2d 174; Morton v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 A.D.3d 381, 381, 820 N.Y.S.2d 294). Here, the homeowners' proposed counterclaims were patently devoid of merit.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to vacate the order dated May 6, 2008, granting the homeowners' unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them ( see CPLR 5015[a][1] ). The plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose the motion and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion ( see CPLR 5015[a]; Legaretta v. Ekhstor, 74 A.D.3d 899, 902 N.Y.S.2d 375; Assael v. 15 Broad St., LLC, 71 A.D.3d 802, 803, 896 N.Y.S.2d 459).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mishal v. Fiduciary Holdings, LLC
...quotation marks omitted]; see Scotto v. Georgoulis, 89 A.D.3d 717, 719, 932 N.Y.S.2d 120;Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Reid, 85 A.D.3d 880, 881, 925 N.Y.S.2d 359). Here, the proposed amendments were either barred by the waiver provision in the rider to the mortgage agreement, or......
-
Dryer v. Musacchio
...see Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 82, 760 N.Y.S.2d 397, 790 N.E.2d 772 [2003];Monahan v. 102–116 Eighth Ave. Assoc., L.P., 85 A.D.3d at 880, 925 N.Y.S.2d 199;Donna Prince L. v. Waters, 48 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 850 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2008] ). The “directly or indirectly” language emplo......
-
People v. Powell
...A.D.3d 947925 N.Y.S.2d 3592011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05301The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.David POWELL, appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.June 14, Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.*360 Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Const......
-
Monahan v. 102–116 Eighth Ave. Associates
...is awarded to the defendant 15th St. Bright & Clean, Inc., payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. [85 A.D.3d 880] General Municipal Law § 205–a establishes a statutory cause of action for firefighters who are injured in the line of duty “as a result of a......