US Bank, N.A. v. Primiano
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. David (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Bargil Assoc., LLC v. Crites (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- HOF I Grantor Trust 5 v. M&M Props. Ventures LLC (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County 2025)
- US Bank N.A. v. Primiano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Gomez v. Principe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- American Bldrs. & Contrs. Supply Co., Inc. v. US Allegro, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Cudjoe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Massias v. Goldberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v. Alphonso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Ulster Sav. Bank v. Fiore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Martin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Katz v. Beil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Elizabeth Primiano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered May 12, 2014, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to appoint a referee and, in effect, denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer to assert the defense of lack of standing and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to appoint a referee, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof, in effect, denying that branch of the appellant’s cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended answer to assert the defense of lack of standing, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant.
CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given.” Thus, leave should be given where the amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the delay in seeking amendment does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party (see HSBC Bank v Picarelli, 110 AD3d 1031, 1031-1032 [2013]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Dimura, 104 AD3d 796, 796-797 [2013]). Here, the defendant Elizabeth Primiano (hereinafter the defendant) waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to include it in her answer. Nonetheless, the plaintiff addressed standing in its motion for summary judgment, and the defendant promptly cross-moved *858 for leave to serve an amended answer. Any delay by the defendant in seeking leave to amend her answer did not result in prejudice or surprise to the plaintiff. Moreover, the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit (see HSBC Bank v Picarelli, 110 AD3d at 1032). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s cross motion.
Inasmuch as there are questions of fact as to the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.