Yemini v Goldberg
2007 NY Slip Op 10144 [46 AD3d 806]
December 18, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008


Ari Yemini et al., Appellants,
v
Oded Goldberg et al.,Respondents. ANO, Inc., et al., Additional Defendants. (And AnotherTitle.)

[*1]Steven Cohn, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y. (Susan E. Dantzig of counsel), for appellants.

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Douglas J. Good and Adam L. Browserof counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin,J.), entered November 2, 2006, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which werefor leave to serve an amended answer and counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Leave to amend or supplement pleadings should be freely granted unless the amendmentsought is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law, or unless prejudice and surprisedirectly result from the delay in seeking the amendment" (Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnik, 37 AD3d 558, 558 [2007]; see Alatorre v Hee Ju Chun, 44 AD3d596 [2007]; Bajanov vGrossman, 36 AD3d 572, 573 [2007]; Leibel v Flynn Hill El. Co., 25 AD3d 768 [2006]; Sample v Levada, 8 AD3d 465,467-468 [2004]). Here, the plaintiffs did not establish that the counterclaims sought to beasserted in the defendants' proposed amended answer are palpably improper or insufficient as amatter of law (see Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnik, 37 AD3d at 558). Nor did theplaintiffs establish that the defendants' delay in seeking leave to amend prejudiced or surprisedthem. The defendants sought leave to serve the amended answer and counterclaims only one yearafter the action was commenced, after limited discovery had been conducted. The plaintiffs didnot establish that they "incurred some change in position or hindrance in the preparation of[their] case which could have been avoided had the [*2]originalpleading contained the proposed amendment" (Whalen v Kawasaki Motors Corp.,U.S.A., 92 NY2d 288, 293 [1998]). Krausman, J.P., Fisher, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ.,concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.