STILLMAN v. KALIKOW (2006)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated April 20, 2005, which denied his motion for leave to amend the caption and the complaint.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the defendant K & S Waterford Project is dismissed as academic;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the defendant Morrisville Shopping Center, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion;  as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

In light of this court's recent determination in Stillman v. Kalikow, 22 A.D.3d 660, 802 N.Y.S.2d 714, the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the defendant K & S Waterfront Project is dismissed as academic.

 The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff leave to amend the caption to reflect that the proper name of the defendant Morrisville Shopping Center is KEP Morrisville Realty, LLC (see Cutting Edge v. Santora, 4 A.D.3d 867, 771 N.Y.S.2d 462;  Dubar v. Wilmorite, 298 A.D.2d 918, 748 N.Y.S.2d 82).

 However, the court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add new causes of action.   Leave to amend a pleading should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see Consolidated Payroll Servs. v. Berk, 18 A.D.3d 415, 794 N.Y.S.2d 410;  Ogilvie v. McDonald's Corp., 294 A.D.2d 550, 742 N.Y.S.2d 897;  McDermott v. Presbyterian Congregation of Bethlehem, 275 A.D.2d 305, 712 N.Y.S.2d 571).   The proposed amended complaint did not adequately state causes of action to recover in quantum meruit and for unjust enrichment (see Fallon v. McKeon, 230 A.D.2d 629, 646 N.Y.S.2d 109;  Martin H. Bauman Assocs. v. H & M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 567 N.Y.S.2d 404).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions.