ESHAGHIAN v. ESHAGHIAN, 170 A.D.3d 416 (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20190306509
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2019
Summary: Plaintiff's proposed new claim arises from the same facts (indeed appears in the same agreement) that formed the basis of the prior claims and counterclaims. Thus, while defendants emphasize plaintiff's long delay in seeking to amend, they have not shown that they are surprised or prejudiced by the amendment ( see Anoun v City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]). On its face, the proposed amendment is not "palpably . . . devoid of merit" ( see Cruz v Brown, 129 A.D.3d 455 , 456 [1s
Summary: Plaintiff's proposed new claim arises from the same facts (indeed appears in the same agreement) that formed the basis of the prior claims and counterclaims. Thus, while defendants emphasize plaintiff's long delay in seeking to amend, they have not shown that they are surprised or prejudiced by the amendment ( see Anoun v City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]). On its face, the proposed amendment is not "palpably . . . devoid of merit" ( see Cruz v Brown, 129 A.D.3d 455 , 456 [1st..
More
Plaintiff's proposed new claim arises from the same facts (indeed appears in the same agreement) that formed the basis of the prior claims and counterclaims. Thus, while defendants emphasize plaintiff's long delay in seeking to amend, they have not shown that they are surprised or prejudiced by the amendment (see Anoun v City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]).
On its face, the proposed amendment is not "palpably . . . devoid of merit" (see Cruz v Brown, 129 A.D.3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2015]). It flows logically from the prior rulings in this case as to the validity of the Letter Agreement and the invalidity of the so-called "Side Agreement."
The prior summary judgment ruling in this action does not constitute a bar to amendment of the complaint on the ground of res judicata, which is applicable only to a judgment in a prior action (see Hudson-Spring Partnership, L.P. v P+M Design Consultants, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 419 [1st Dept 2013]). There is no violation of the law of the case doctrine, because the proposed amendment is consistent with, rather than contrary to, the prior rulings in this action.
Source: Leagle
