Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lucido v. Mancusogreen2 sentences2019Where this standard is met, no evidentiary showing of merit is required in a motion to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025(b) ( see Lucido v Mancuso , 49 AD3d at 229 ; see also 1259 Lincoln Place Corp. v Bank of N.Y. , 159 AD3d 1004 , 1006). 2019"Where this standard is met, no evidentiary showing of merit is required in a motion to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025(b)" ( US Bank N.A. v Murillo , 171 [*2]AD3d at 985-986; see Lucido v Mancuso , 49 AD3d at 229 ). | 3 | 4 |
Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O'Donnell & Weyher v. Valsan, Inc.green2 sentences2021The court providently declined to provide plaintiff with relief from its prior order, ostensibly based on newly discovered evidence ( Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O'Donnell & Weyher v Valsan, Inc. , 226 AD2d 102, 103 [1st Dept 1996]; Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v RJR Mech. 2021The court providently declined to provide plaintiff with relief from its prior order, ostensibly based on newly discovered evidence ( Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O'Donnell & Weyher v Valsan, Inc. , 226 AD2d 102, 103 [1st Dept 1996]; Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v RJR Mech. | 2 | 2 |
Acevedo v. Town 'N Country Condominiumgreen2 sentences2014In any event, the respondents established, prima facie, that they did not breach their fiduciary duty to XYZ in this regard, and the plaintiff raised no triable issues of fact in opposition to that showing (see Zuckerbrod v 355 Co., LLC, 113 AD3d 675 [2014]; Acevedo v Town ‘N Country Condominium, Section I, Bd. of Mgrs., 51 AD3d 603, 604 [2008]). 2014In any event, the respondents established, prima facie, that they did not breach their fiduciary duty to XYZ in this regard, and the plaintiff raised no triable issues of fact in opposition to that showing (see Zuckerbrod v 355 Co., LLC, 113 AD3d 675 [2014]; Acevedo v Town ‘N Country Condominium, Section I, Bd. of Mgrs., 51 AD3d 603, 604 [2008]). | 2 | 2 |
Buran v. Coupalgreen2 sentences2004Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. “[T]he relation back doctrine allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are ‘united in interest’ ” (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995]; see Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266, 267 [1998]). 1996The Statute of Limitations has expired and plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine because those new defendants are not "united in interest” with the original defendant (CPLR 203 [b]; see, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 ; Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61, 69 ). | 2 | 2 |
Smith-Hoy v. AMC Property Evaluations, Inc.green2 sentences2011Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809, 811 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). 2008Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809 [2008]; Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City School Constr. | 1 | 2 |
Cianciotto v. Hospice Care Networkgreen1 sentence2026Even if the plaintiff had secured letters of administration during the pendency of this motion, the complaint must still be summarily dismissed, since she may not make a belated motion to amend the complaint herein to allege that she now has capacity to prosecute the subject claims (see Mingone v State of New York, 100 at 899; Cianciotto v Hospice Care Network, 32 Misc 3d 916, 919 [Dist Ct, Nassau County 2011]; cf. Favourite, Ltd. v Cico, 42 NY3d 250 , 260 [2024] [where dismissal of complaint due to dissolution of corporate plaintiff was without prejudice, Supreme Court did not lack discretion | 1 | 1 |
Scofield v. DeGroodtgreen1 sentence2024"In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is "palpably insufficient" to state a cause of action or is patently devoid of merit" (Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018 [2d Dept 2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Pergament v. Roachgreen1 sentence2024"Whether to grant such leave is within the motion court's discretion, the exercise of which will not be lightly disturbed" (Pergament v Roach, 41 AD3d 569, 572 [2d Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Managers of 100 Congress Condominium v. SDS Congress, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Discussion "A motion to dismiss a complaint based upon documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) may be granted "only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law"" ( Board of Mgrs. of 100 Congress Condominium v SDS Congress, LLC , 152 AD3d 478, 479 [2d Dept 2017] [citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
US Bank N.A. v. Murillogreen1 sentence2019"Where this standard is met, no evidentiary showing of merit is required in a motion to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025(b)" ( US Bank N.A. v Murillo , 171 [*2]AD3d at 985-986; see Lucido v Mancuso , 49 AD3d at 229 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates v. Cochemsgreen1 sentence2011“Leave to amend should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise” (Rosicki, Rosicki & Assoc., P.C. v Cochems, 59 AD3d 512, 514 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Sample v. Levadagreen1 sentence2008Here, the insufficiency and lack of merit of the plaintiffs’ proposed amended claims was “clear and free from doubt” (id. at 227; cf. Sample v Levada, 8 AD3d 465, 467-468 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Dygert v. Leonardgreen1 sentence2006“The decision to allow or disallow an amendment is committed to the court’s discretion” (Dygert v Leonard, 138 AD2d 793, 794 [1988] [citations omitted]) and, here, plaintiffs amended pleading was served beyond all time periods available for making an amendment as of right under CPLR 3025 (a), and it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to seek the requisite leave to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025 (b). | 1 | 1 |
Poulard v. Papamihlopoulosgreen1 sentence2004Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. “[T]he relation back doctrine allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are ‘united in interest’ ” (Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 177 [1995]; see Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266, 267 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
34-06 73 v. Seneca Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2023Co. , 39 NY3d 44 , 50 [2022]), as it properly examined the underlying merits of the proposed causes of action and found that they were not viable in light of Maryland Corporations and Associations Code § 2-419 ( see e.g. 2023Co. , 39 NY3d 44 , 50 [2022]), as it properly examined the underlying merits of the proposed causes of action and found that they were not viable in light of Maryland Corporations and Associations Code § 2-419 ( see e.g. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Zuckerbrod v. 355 Co.
green
2 sentences2014In any event, the respondents established, prima facie, that they did not breach their fiduciary duty to XYZ in this regard, and the plaintiff raised no triable issues of fact in opposition to that showing (see Zuckerbrod v 355 Co., LLC, 113 AD3d 675 [2014]; Acevedo v Town ‘N Country Condominium, Section I, Bd. of Mgrs., 51 AD3d 603, 604 [2008]). 2014In any event, the respondents established, prima facie, that they did not breach their fiduciary duty to XYZ in this regard, and the plaintiff raised no triable issues of fact in opposition to that showing (see Zuckerbrod v 355 Co., LLC, 113 AD3d 675 [2014]; Acevedo v Town ‘N Country Condominium, Section I, Bd. of Mgrs., 51 AD3d 603, 604 [2008]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Hummingbird Associates v. Dix Auto Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Once plaintiff served the amended complaint, the original complaint was superseded, and the amended complaint “became the only complaint in the action” (Hummingbird Assoc. v Dix Auto Serv., 273 AD2d 58 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 764 [2000]). 2012Once plaintiff served the amended complaint, the original complaint was superseded, and the amended complaint “became the only complaint in the action” (Hummingbird Assoc. v Dix Auto Serv., 273 AD2d 58 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 764 [2000]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross
green
1 sentence2025In support of its cross-motion seeking leave to amend the Complaint to add the Proposed Additional Plaintiff Forgione Landscaping, Inc. d/b/a A&J Landscaping and d/b/a A&J Sprinklers and the additional language that comports with CPLR 3015(e), Plaintiff contends that CPLR 3015(e) permits the amendment of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 to provide the [*5]license number and name of the license issuing agency ( id. at 4—5). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Martin v. Waldbaum's Supermarket
neutral
1 sentence2018A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325(b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) ( see Martin v Waldbaum's Supermarket , 172 AD2d 804 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Foster v. Churchill
green
1 sentence2001Plaintiff failed to submit evidence of an intentional and unjustified procurement of any breach of the parties’ contract of sale (see, Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744 ) to rebut third-party defendant’s prima facie showing that it had a legitimate business purpose for the information it sought. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Clark v. Foley
green
1 sentence2001Co., 282 AD2d 494 ; Clark v Foley, 240 AD2d 458 ; Heckler Elec. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Citarelli v. American Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence2001Co., 282 AD2d 494 ; Clark v Foley, 240 AD2d 458 ; Heckler Elec. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Nishman v. De Marco
green
1 sentence2001Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly disregarded the amended complaints served and filed after that date (see, Nishman v DeMarco, 76 AD2d 360, 368-369 ; Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424, 436 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kraker v. Roll
green
1 sentence2001Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly disregarded the amended complaints served and filed after that date (see, Nishman v DeMarco, 76 AD2d 360, 368-369 ; Kraker v Roll, 100 AD2d 424, 436 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
SRW Associates v. Bellport Beach Property Owners
green
1 sentence2001Owners, 129 AD2d 328, 330 ), or to make an evidentiary showing that his proposed amendment has merit as required on a motion to amend a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Citarelli v American Ins. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wieder v. Skala
green
1 sentence2001Plaintiffs amended complaint was not properly served on the third-party defendant in compliance with CPLR 1009 and the court properly denied leave to serve the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) because it plainly lacked merit (see, Wieder v Skala, 168 AD2d 355 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brock v. Bua
green
1 sentence1996The Statute of Limitations has expired and plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine because those new defendants are not "united in interest” with the original defendant (CPLR 203 [b]; see, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178 ; Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61, 69 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Nissenbaum v. Ferazzoli
green
1 sentence1994We further find that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Nissenbaum v Ferazzoli, 171 AD2d 654, 655 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v. Groveton Papers Co.
neutral
1 sentence1991Leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3025 (b) was properly denied as the prior order of the court, which dismissed as legally deficient the first and second causes of action and a portion of the fifth and sixth causes of action of the original complaint, was res judicata with respect to the proposed amended complaint (Merchant Suppliers Paper Co. v Groveton Papers Co., 27 AD2d 713 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Rich v. Lefkovits
green
1 sentence1991In addition, service of the proposed amended complaint was untimely since the parties’ stipulation did not extend the plaintiffs’ time to serve the amended complaint in response to the defendants’ verified answer and counterclaims (Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Mayers v. D'Agostino green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Duffy v. Horton Memorial Hospital neutral | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| DeGuire v. DeGuire green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Leonard Hospital v. Messier neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Habiby v. Habiby neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Albany Crane Service, Inc. v. Pettibone Mulliken Corp. neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Jankay v. Clearoll Poly Film, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Bilhorn v. Farlow green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Swertz v. Swertz neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Chambland v. Brewer yellow | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Garfinkle v. Kaplan neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Martins v. Ford yellow | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Gannon Personnel Agency, Inc. v. City of New York green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.