Lew Nussberg, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gary Tatintsian, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants. (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Lew Nussberg, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gary Tatintsian, etc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.

6415N

Decided: December 20, 2011

Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick, JJ.

Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, New York (Gregory A. Clarick of counsel), for appellants. Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP, New York (Frank J. Franzino, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to amend their answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

Defendants' proposed counterclaims alleging that plaintiff knowingly sold forged artworks to defendants, resulting in lost profits and other damages, do not plainly lack merit (MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 500 [2010] ). Further, plaintiff fails to show that the proposed amendments would result in prejudice to him that could have been avoided had defendants raised the counterclaims in their original answer (see Murray v. City of New York, 51 AD3d 502, 503, lv denied, 11 NY3d 703 [2008] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network