Ferriola v. DiMarzio
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the defendant Charles Barresi appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated August 19, 2010, as denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense that the amended complaint fails to name necessary and indispensable parties.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In the absence of significant prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]) unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Bernardi v Spyratos, 79 AD3d 684, 688 [2010]; Malanga v Chamberlain, 71 AD3d 644, 646 [2010]; Unger v Leviton, 25 AD3d 689, 690 [2006]). The appellant’s proposed amendment to his answer, in which he seeks to add the affirmative defense that the amended
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.