From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scofield v. Degroodt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 2008
864 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-09261.

September 30, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the use and occupancy of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Fagones, J.), dated September 19, 2007, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint.

Goldstein Metzger, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Paul J. Goldstein of counsel), for appellants.

David A. Sears, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Carni and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, inter alia, to add a cause of action alleging unjust enrichment and to recover in quantum meruit. In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is "palpably insufficient" to state a cause of action or is patently devoid of merit ( Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229; see Smith-Hoy v AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809; Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 46 AD3d 874; G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v Lazzari, 44 AD3d 95, 99). Here, the insufficiency and lack of merit of the plaintiffs' proposed amended claims that, inter alia, the defendants were unjustly enriched at their expense are clear and free from doubt ( see Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 227; see generally Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192, 196-197; Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Luft, 52 AD3d 491, 492).


Summaries of

Scofield v. Degroodt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 30, 2008
864 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Scofield v. Degroodt

Case Details

Full title:GARY SCOFIELD et al., Appellants, v. JOHN DEGROODT et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 30, 2008

Citations

864 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
864 N.Y.S.2d 174
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 7229

Citing Cases

Signature Bank v. 1775 East 17th St. LLC

Martin Daskal, in his motion for leave to amend his and 1775 East 17th St., LLC's answer, seeks to add five…

Signature Bank v. 1775 E. 17th St., LLC

Martin Daskal, in his motion for leave to amend his and 1775 East 17th St., LLC's answer, seeks to add five…