| MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04867 [74 AD3d 499] |
| June 8, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| MBIA Insurance Corporation, Respondent, v Greystone &Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York (Jared R. Clark of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered December 4, 2009,which granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In granting the motion, the court permitted plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil and addStephen Rosenberg as a party defendant. Plaintiff had learned in the course of certain depositiontestimony that Rosenberg was the 100% owner and sole director of the corporate defendant,whose primary, if not only, source of income was the periodic capital contributions made to it byRosenberg. Motions for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]),absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom (see Jacobson v McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharms., 68 AD3d652 [2009]), unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid ofmerit.
On a motion for leave to amend, plaintiff need not establish the merit of its proposed newallegations (Lucido v Mancuso, 49AD3d 220, 227 [2008]), but simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpablyinsufficient or clearly devoid of merit (Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 AD3d 363, 366[2007]), which it has done. Contrary to the corporate defendant's argument, the proposedamendment was supported by a sufficient showing of merit [*2]through the submission of an affirmation by counsel, along with atranscript of relevant deposition testimony. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli,DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.