Schulte Roth & Zabel, Llp v. Kassover
Decision Date | 27 April 2006 |
Docket Number | 8416N. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL, LLP, Respondent, v. PHILIP J. KASSOVER, Appellant. |
Defendant's contention that he raised an issue of fact with respect to whether plaintiff represented him in his capacity as executor, as well as individually as had been alleged in the original answer, ignores the governing procedure. Although the standard for amending a pleading is less exacting than in moving for summary judgment, there must still be an affidavit of merit or an offer of evidence similar to that supporting a summary judgment motion, which defendant failed to provide (see Morgan v Prospect Park Assoc. Holdings, 251 AD2d 306 [1998]; Nab-Tern Constructors v. City of New York, 123 AD2d 571, 572 [1986]). The documents appropriately introduced through the attorney's affirmation (see Lewis v. Safety Disposal Sys. of Pa., Inc., 12 AD3d 324, 325 [2004]) purported merely to negate the existence of surprise or prejudice. Defendant's attempt to remedy the deficiency by submitting his affidavit for the first time in reply was improper (see Ritt v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 AD2d 560, 562 [1992]). In any event, we note that defendant's submissions failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had represented the estate as well.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
544 W. 157th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Alliance Prop. Mgmt. & Dev., Inc., Index No. 104203/2012
...at 450; Humphreys & Harding, Inc. v. Universal Bonding Ins. Co., 52 A.D.3d 324, 326 (1st Dep't 2008); Shulte, Roth & Zabel, LLP v. Kassover, 28 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st Dep't 2006). Defendant bears the burden to demonstrate the merits of the proposed amendments through admissible evidence. Gree......
-
Pizarro v. Lignelli
...at 5 00; Humphreys & Harding, Inc. v. Universal Bonding Ins. Co., 52 A.D.3d 324, 326 (1st Dep't 2008); Shulte, Roth & Zabel, LLP v. Kassover, 28 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st Dep't 2006). While plaintiff need not prove his proposed claims at this stage, he still must show the viability of his propos......
-
80 CPW Apartments Corp. v. Nathan
...be an affidavit of merit or an offer of evidence similar to that supporting a summary judgment motion . . . ." Schulte Roth & Zabel. LLP, 28 A.D.3d 404, 405 (1st Dep't 2006). Thus, plaintiff need not prove its proposed claims at this stage, but must support them with admissible evidence. Av......
-
Chiaffitelli v. Int'l Bus. Machines, Index No.: 003150/11
...7 A.D.3d 773 (2d Dept. 2004); Adler v. Suffolk County Water Authority, 306 A.D.2d 229 (2d Dept. 2003); see, Schulte Roth & label, LLP v Kassover, 28 A.D.3d 404 (1st Dept. 2006). Even if the Court considers the Reply Affidavit, it is not sufficient documentary evidence to dismiss pursuant to......