Gitlin v. Chirinkin, 60 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Gitlin v. Chirinkin, 60 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: C Castle Grp. Corp. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 237 A.D.3d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 902 Determining leave to amend pleadings and court discretion25 citing cases“a determination whether to grant such leave is within the supreme court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed”15 citing courts quote it · 20 listed here
  • C Castle Grp. Corp. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 237 A.D.3d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published
    "The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion" ( Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan , 189 AD3d 1360, 1362). "'A determin…
  • Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. Cnty. of Nassau, 144 A.D.3d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Mellon v Aquino, 131 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2015]; Onewest, F.S.B. v Goddard, 131 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2015]). “ Tn the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted u…
  • Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. Cnty. of Nassau, 144 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Contrary to the County’s contention, the denial of that branch of its cross motion which was for leave to amend its answer to assert the statute of limitations as a defense and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred w…
  • Katz v. Beil, 142 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    “Adetermi- *961 nation whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” (Gitlin v Chirihkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]; see Galanova v Safir, 127 A…
  • Krigsman v. Cyngiel, 130 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 119 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Bloom v Lugli, 102 AD3d 715, 717-718 [2013]…
  • Finkelstein v. Lincoln Nat'l Corp., 107 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    “A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]; see Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806…
  • Henry v. MTA, 106 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Nevertheless, “[a] determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]; see Aurora Loan S…
  • Vitale v. Giaimo, 103 A.D.3d 835 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    With respect to the order dated August 26, 2009, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended complaint as serting additional causes of action for repayment of alleg…
  • Bloom v. Lugli, 102 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    We agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer, but do so on different grounds. “ ‘Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient…
Show 10 more citing cases
  • Sealy v. Clifton L.L.C., 34 Misc. 3d 266 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2011).published
    Holdings, 251 AD2d 306, 306 [2d Dept 1998].) The issue for the court is whether the proposed amendment is “patently devoid of merit.” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2d Dept 2009].) A claim for defamation of title must plead: (1) a…
  • Greco v. Christoffersen, 70 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Sealy v. Clifton, LLC, 68 A.D.3d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    The proposed amendments “were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the defendants did not demonstrate prejudice or surprise from the same” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]).
  • Peerless Ins. v. Micro Fibertek, Inc., 67 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit (see Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [200…
  • Frumento v. On Rite Co., 66 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Schuyler v. Perry, 69 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).published
    Leave shall, be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances.” “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or…
  • Sanatass v. Town of North Hempstead, 64 A.D.3d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]…
  • Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dimura, 104 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    “Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Sheila Props., Inc. v…
  • Courthouse Corp. Ctr. v. Schulman, 89 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments were “neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and…
  • Man Ling Chan Lam v. Qing Yun Xiao, 2026 NY Slip Op 05389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
At page 901 Granting leave to amend pleadings standards16 citing cases“leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit”6 citing courts quote it · 13 listed here
  • Krigsman v. Cyngiel, 130 A.D.3d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Sabowitz v. Sabowitz, 123 A.D.3d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint and reply (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2009]; Sheila P…
  • Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 119 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Bloom v Lugli, 102 AD3d 715, 717-718 [2013]…
  • Simon v. Granite Bldg. 2, LLC, 114 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    For similar reasons, that branch of the Kulka defendants’ cross motion which was for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contractual indemnification against Canatal and MCLO should have been denied, as the amendment was…
  • Bloom v. Lugli, 102 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    We agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer, but do so on different grounds. “ ‘Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient…
  • Malanga v. Chamberlain, 71 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Here, the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and the defendant failed to establish that he would be surprised or prejudiced by the amendment (see Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2009]).
  • Greco v. Christoffersen, 70 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Frumento v. On Rite Co., 66 A.D.3d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 901-902 [2…
  • Schuyler v. Perry, 69 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).published
    Leave shall, be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances.” “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or…
  • Sanatass v. Town of North Hempstead, 64 A.D.3d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    “Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902 [2009]…
Show 3 more citing cases
  • Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dimura, 104 A.D.3d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    “Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” (Sheila Props., Inc. v…
  • Fusca v. A & S Constr., 84 A.D.3d 1155 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Turning to the plaintiffs cross motion, “[l]eave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patent…
  • Matter of Hillside Place, LLC v. Hous. & Cmty. Renewal of the State of N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 05308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eduard Gitlin
v.
Alex Chirinkin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 24, 2009.
Published opinion
60 A.D.3d 901
Cited by 275 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered October 22, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the second through fifth causes of action of the amended verified complaint.

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

Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of[*902] merit (see Sheila Props., Inc. v A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 AD3d 424 [2009]; Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 57 AD 3d 929 [2008]). A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808 [2007]). Here, the plaintiffs proposed amendments were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the defendants did not demonstrate prejudice or surprise from the same. Further, in light of the plaintiffs allegations as to when he discovered the alleged fraudulent conduct (see Oggioni v Oggioni, 46 AD3d 646 [2007]; Del Vecchio v Nassau County, 118 AD2d 615 [1986]), and his allegations giving rise to his contention that the defendants should be equitably estopped from interposing a statute of limitation defense as to the remaining causes of action (see Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666 [2006]; Bobash, Inc. v Festinger, 57 AD3d 464 [2008]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendants’ contention that the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was untimely (cf. Peteroy v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 278 AD2d 295 [2000]; Lucido v Vitolo, 251 AD2d 383 [1998]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.