Opinion
10-12-2016
Vassilis PANAGOULOPOULOS, et al., appellants, v. Carlos ORTIZ Jr. MD, P.C., et al., respondents.
Vassilis Panagoulopoulos and Margarita Panagoulopoulos, Flushing, NY, appellants pro se. Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, Garden City, NY (David I. Lieser of counsel), for respondents.
Vassilis Panagoulopoulos and Margarita Panagoulopoulos, Flushing, NY, appellants pro se.
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, Garden City, NY (David I. Lieser of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda–Kirwan, J.), dated November 5, 2014, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint. Prior to this motion, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (see Panagoulopoulos v. Carlos Ortiz Jr MD, P.C., 143 A.D.3d 791, 38 N.Y.S.3d 807, 2016 WL 5928785 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2014–07652; decided herewith] ). Thus, there was no complaint before the court to amend (see Kazakhstan Inv. Fund v. Manolovici, 2 A.D.3d 249, 250, 768 N.Y.S.2d 324 ; see also Prinz v. New York State Elec. & Gas, 82 A.D.3d 1199, 920 N.Y.S.2d 914 ). In any event, the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Dorce v. Gluck, 140 A.D.3d 1111, 1112–1113, 34 N.Y.S.3d 501 ). Moreover, we note that the proposed amended complaint did not clearly show the changes or additions to be made to the pleading (see CPLR 3025[b] ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., DICKERSON, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.