| Spodek v Neiss |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01543 [104 AD3d 758] |
| March 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| J. Leonard Spodek, Also Known as Leonard Spodek, et al.,Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Charles Neiss et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Katlowitz & Associates, New York, N.Y. (Moshe Y. Katlowitz and Elan E. Weinrebof counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs J.Leonard Spodek, also known as Leonard Spodek, and Rosalind Spodek appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Lally, J.), entered May 24, 2011, as denied those branches of their motion which werefor leave to amend the amended complaint to add causes of action alleging violations ofReal Property Law § 440 et seq. and mismanagement/managerial neglect,and to join certain entities as defendants.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of theappellants' motion which was for leave to amend the amended complaint to add causes ofaction alleging violations of Real Property Law § 440 et seq. andmismanagement/managerial neglect. " 'Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given(see CPLR 3025 [b]), provided the amendment is not palpably insufficient, doesnot prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit' " (Clark v Clark, 93 AD3d812, 816 [2012], quoting Ortega v Bisogno & Meyerson, 2 AD3d 607, 609 [2003])." 'A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broaddiscretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed' " (Tarek Youssef Hassan Saleh v 5thAve. Kings Fruit & Vegetables Corp., 92 AD3d 749, 750 [2012], quoting Peerless Ins. Co. v Micro Fibertek,Inc., 67 AD3d 978, 980 [2009]). Here, the proposed additional causes of actionwere, among other things, patently devoid of merit.
Furthermore, as the appellants only sought relief against the proposed additionaldefendants in the proposed additional causes of action, that branch of their motion whichwas for leave to join those entities as defendants was properly denied (see generally Saldivar v I.J. WhiteCorp., 9 AD3d 357, 358 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Leventhal and Chambers,JJ., concur.