| Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Reid |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05242 [85 AD3d 880] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al.,Respondents, v Mavis Reid et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
—[*1] Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Andrew Morganstern of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to cancel and expunge a mortgage satisfaction erroneously made and recorded,the defendants Mavis Reid and Shen-Reka Clarke appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 6, 2010, which denied their motion for leave to amendtheir answer and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to vacate a prior order of the same courtdated May 6, 2008, granting their unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Mavis Reid and Shen-RekaClarke (hereinafter together the homeowners) for leave to amend their answer to assert additionalcounterclaims. Leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted (see CPLR 3025[b]). However, when the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient to state a cause of actionor is patently devoid of merit, leave to amend should be denied (see Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d1017, 1018 [2008]; Morton vBrookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 AD3d 381, 381 [2006]). Here, the homeowners' proposedcounterclaims were patently devoid of merit.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to vacate the order datedMay 6, 2008, granting the homeowners' unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). The plaintiffsdemonstrated a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose the motion and a potentiallymeritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Legaretta v Ekhstor, 74 AD3d 899[2010]; Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC,71 AD3d 802, 803 [2010]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Eng,JJ., concur.