Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy SMITH, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FOUNDERS ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant–Respondent.
Founders Entertainment LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Theatrical Resources, LLC, et al., Third–Party Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert direct claims against third-party defendants Theatrical Resources, LLC and Mountain Productions, Inc., unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiff was entitled to amend his complaint to assert direct claims against Theatrical and Mountain as the claims were not devoid of merit or palpably insufficient ( CPLR 3025[b]); see Priestly v. Panmedix Inc., 134 AD3d 642, 642–643 [1st Dept 2015]). The third-party complaint by defendant third-party plaintiff Founders Entertainment, Inc. alleged the existence of contracts with Mountain and Theatrical to perform work at the site where plaintiff was allegedly injured by a falling steel beam, and Mountain and Theatrical's proposed answers, cross-claims, and counterclaims to the proposed amended complaint also admitted the existence of those contracts. Indeed, neither Mountain nor Theatrical have denied the existence of a contract providing that they would supply services to the Governor's Ball at the time of the accident. Nor have Mountain or Theatrical asserted that they were prejudiced by the proposed amendment, and the motion for leave to amend was filed within a few days of the filing of the third-party complaint (see St. Nicholas W. 126 L.P. v Republic Inv. Co., LLC, 193 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021]); Theatrical has not appeared on this appeal.
Although the proposed amended pleadings were verified only by counsel, the existence of the relevant contracts was within counsel's knowledge since the contracts were attached as exhibits to the proposed amended complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 157
Decided: May 02, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)