WAYMAN v. CPE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND COMPANY INC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend the caption and to direct the County Clerk to reflect the change in the judgment nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants, he moved to amend the caption to change one of the defendants from “CPE Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.” to “CPE Housing Development Fund Company, Inc. as Nominee for CPE Equities LLC,” which he styled as the correction of a misnomer.  However, they are two different entities, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that CPE Equities was the intended subject of the action.  Significantly, he does not address whether he knew of CPE Housing's nominee status when he commenced the action or why he waited to move to amend the caption for a year from the time his knowledge of that fact became apparent during litigation (cf.  Suarez v. Shorehaven Homeowners Assn., 202 A.D.2d 229, 230–231, 608 N.Y.S.2d 457 [1st Dept. 1994];  Rodriguez v. Dixie N.Y.C., Inc., 26 A.D.3d 199, 200, 810 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1st Dept. 2006]).

We decline to consider plaintiff's unpreserved argument that the relation back doctrine under CPLR 203(f) would apply to this case “since it is not a purely legal argument apparent on the face of the record” (Louis v. City of New York, 223 A.D.3d 526, 527, 203 N.Y.S.3d 560 [1st Dept. 2024]).  In any event, plaintiff conceded before the motion court that he did not intend to amend the pleading to join CPE Equities as a new party to the action.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.