| Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gibson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07928 [111 AD3d 875] |
| November 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,Respondent, v Kirk Gibson et al., Defendants, and Brett Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Fidelity National Law Group, New York, N.Y. (Anthony F. Prisco of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brett Jones appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 22, 2012,which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the active calendar, andpursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to amend the complaint so as to assert certainadditional causes of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which wasto restore this action to the active calendar. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note ofissue action (see Rakha vPinnacle Bus Servs., 98 AD3d 657, 658 [2012]; Matter of Butler v Board ofTrustees N.Y. City Fire Dept. Pension Fund, 91 AD3d 867, 868 [2012]; Varricchio v Sterling, 86AD3d 535, 536 [2011]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138[2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]). Further, therewas neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing thecomplaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 17[2013]; Rakha v Pinnacle Bus Servs., 98 AD3d at 658; Mitskevitch v City ofNew York, 78 AD3d at 1138).
Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motionwhich was pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to amend the complaint so as to assertcertain additional causes of action. "Pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), leave to amend apleading should be freely given, provided that the amendment is not palpablyinsufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoidof merit" (Rechler Equity B-1,LLC v AKR Corp., 98 AD3d 496, 498 [2012] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see Finkelstein vLincoln Natl. Corp., 107 AD3d 759, 761 [2013]; Spodek v Neiss, 104 AD3d758, 759 [2013]; Lucido vMancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]). Here, the proposed amendments wereneither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence thatthe amendments would prejudice or surprise the appellant. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Halland Cohen, JJ., concur.