Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Linen, 2022-50512

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation2022 NY Slip Op 50512 (U)
PartiesToyota Motor Credit Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LaToya Linen, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number2022-50512
Decision Date22 June 2022

2022 NY Slip Op 50512(U)

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.

LaToya Linen, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2022-50512

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

June 22, 2022


Unpublished Opinion

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered October 5, 2021, which denied her motion to amend her counterclaim and denied class action certification.

PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order (Naita A. Semaj, J.), entered October 5, 2021, reversed, without costs, motion for leave to amend granted, and the portion of the order denying class action certification is stricken.

Civil Court improperly denied defendant's unopposed motion for leave to amend to add a class action counterclaim. On a motion for leave to amend a pleading, movant need not establish the merit of the proposed new allegations, but must "simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit" (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 500 [2010] ; Lavrenyuk v Life Care Servs., Inc., 198 A.D.3d 569, 570 [2021], lv dismissed ___ N.Y.3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 66092 [2022]). Here, the court prematurely reached the merits of the proposed amendment, which was adequately pleaded and not clearly devoid of merit.

We note that the only motion before the court was one for leave to amend (see CPLR 3025[b]). A court is generally limited to issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before it (see CPLR 2214); Matter of Banks v Stanford, 159 A.D.3d 134, 146-147 [2018]). Here, in the absence of any motion seeking class action certification pursuant to CPLR 902, the court was without authority to rule upon this dispositive issue (see DiDonato v Dyckman, 121 A.D.3d 638, 640 [2014]). On this basis, we strike the provision in the order purporting to deny class action certification, without prejudice to a proper application for such relief.

All concur

To continue reading

Request your trial

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