Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Benhar v. 5 Star Legal Funding, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Courts have held that prejudice "arises when a party incurs a change in position or is hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position" (Valdes v Marbrose Realty, 289 AD2d 28, 29 [1st Dept 2001]; Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 694 [1st Dept 2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Halloran v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“It is well established that leave to amend a pleading [pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b)] is freely given ‘absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay’ ” (Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 694 [1st Dept 2011], quoting Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934 , 935 [1978]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Leave to amend pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely given “absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 694 [1st Dept 2011], citing Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934 , 935 [1978]), “or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” (McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449 , 450 [1st Dept 2012], citing Shepherd v New York City Tr Auth., 129 AD2d 574, 574 [2d Dept 1987]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC (2×)
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
(See Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 695 [1st Dept 2011]; Guzman v Mike’s Pipe Yard, 35 AD3d 266 [1st Dept 2006]; Lanpont v Savvas Cab Corp., 244 AD2d at 210 .) While Genesis Holding need not establish at this stage that the proposed defenses will succeed, Genesis Holding still must show its viability, by alleging its elements in a proposed verified amended answer or supporting it with other admissible evidence.
cited Cited "see" Norris v. Walcott
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
(CPLR 3025; see Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694 [1st Dept 2011]; Eighth Ave.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sterling National Bank v. American Elite Properties Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: compare · confidence medium
The release upon which the amended pleading was premised did not pertain to the equipment at issue (see CPLR 3025 [b]; 360 W. 11th LLC v ACG Credit Co. II, LLC, 90 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2011]; Nab-Tern Constructors v City of New York, 123 AD2d 571, 572-573 [1986]; compare Anoun v City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 695 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Heithem Anoun
v.
City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 30, 2011.
85 A.D.3d 694
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered October 19, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to amend its answer to change an admission of ownership of the alleged accident location to a denial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that on July 1, 2008, he tripped and fell over a depressed metal grating located in the ground at Chelsea Waterside Park. Plaintiff served a timely notice of claim upon defendant and, on November 5, 2008, commenced this action. In January 2009, defendant answered and admitted ownership and control over the area where the accident occurred.

Defendant subsequently moved for, inter alia, summary judgment, arguing that it did not own the subject park. Defendant provided evidence that the property was owned by the State. When defendant realized that it had previously admitted ownership, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and to stay a determination of the summary judgment motion.

It is well established that leave to amend a pleading is freely given “absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935 [1978]; see CPLR 3025 [b]). “Prejudice arises when a party incurs a change in position or is hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position” (Valdes v Marbrose Realty, 289 AD2d 28, 29 [2001]). Here, the 90-day period within which plaintiff could serve the State with a notice of claim terminated on September 29, 2008, more than three months prior to defendant’s admission of ownership. Thus, the admission could not have caused plaintiff any prejudice. For the same reasons, plaintiffs claims of estoppel are unfounded (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307, 310 [2006]).

[*695] Although it may ultimately be found that defendant participates in the park’s operation or retains some control over it, that does not warrant denial of the motion to amend. On such a motion, the court considers “the sufficiency of the merits of the proposed amendment” (Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, defendant’s submissions, which included an affidavit of the title examiner and appropriation maps showing that the property was the subject of a taking by the State, were sufficient to support the proposed amendment (see e.g. MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499 [2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.