STROUD v. PERSICO CONTRACTING (2018)

Plaintiff moves to amend the caption of the proceeding and the judgment entered in this court on March 31, 2017 in the amount of $4,076.00. Defendant has filed no papers in opposition to the motion.

In support of this motion, plaintiff argues that Riggs Distler & Co., Inc. is the parent company for PCT Contracting. He maintains that PCT Contracting is an abbreviated name for “Persico Contracting”, the named defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that Riggs Distler & Co., Inc. is a proper party and should be added to the proceeding.

CPLR § 305(c) CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party. Under CPLR 5019, a trial court may cure a mistake, defect or irregularity in a judgment or order provided no substantial right of a party is affected by said cure (CPLR 5019 (a) ).

The Court finds that the information submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to support the motion to amend. The only documentation plaintiff submitted to support his claim is a letter dated August 21, 2017 from Con Edison addressed to “Riggs Distler & Co Inc. Successor of PCT Contracting LLC.” There is no reference to “Persico Contracting”, the named company defendant in this proceeding. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate Riggs Distler & Co, Inc. has any business relationship with Persico Contracting, bears any responsibility for the debt and is a necessary party to the action (See Ober v. Rye Town Hilton, 159 AD2d 16 (2nd Dept 1990); CPLR §§ 305; 1003; 3025; 5019) ).

Motion denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

The Court considered the following papers on this motion: Notice of Motion filed October 4, 2017; Affidavit in support; Exhibit.

Adam Seiden, J.