VIDES v. KNAPP LANDSCAPING INC (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Amy S. Puerto, J.), dated March 1, 2024.  The order granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend their answer to assert counterclaims sounding in conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On September 23, 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the New York State Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law art 19) and various wage orders promulgated by the New York State Department of Labor (see 12 NYCRR 137–143).

The defendants timely interposed an answer.  Eight months later, on July 25, 2023, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend their answer to assert counterclaims sounding in conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract, alleging, among other things, that while the plaintiff was supposed to be working for the defendants, he engaged in side jobs wherein he was paid directly by homeowners.  In an order dated March 1, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion.  The plaintiff appeals, and we affirm.

“[L]eave to amend a pleading should be granted where the amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the delay in seeking amendment does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party” (DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. David, 147 A.D.3d 1024, 1025, 48 N.Y.S.3d 234;  see First Natl. Bank of Long Is. v. Four Keys Realty, LLC, 213 A.D.3d 639, 641, 182 N.Y.S.3d 274).  “The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion” (Shields v. Darpoh, 207 A.D.3d 586, 587, 169 N.Y.S.3d 850 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see First Natl. Bank of Long Is. v. Four Keys Realty, LLC, 213 A.D.3d at 641, 182 N.Y.S.3d 274).  Although “[a] motion for leave to amend a complaint or other pleading to add a cause of action or theory of recovery that is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations is patently devoid of merit” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. McAvoy, 188 A.D.3d 808, 810, 136 N.Y.S.3d 134 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Bhatara v. Kolaj, 222 A.D.3d 926, 929, 203 N.Y.S.3d 345), here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, he failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ proposed counterclaims sounding in conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract are time-barred (see generally Capruso v. Village of Kings Point, 23 N.Y.3d 631, 992 N.Y.S.2d 469, 16 N.E.3d 527;  Harlem Capital Ctr., LLC v. Rosen & Gordon, LLC, 145 A.D.3d 579, 580, 44 N.Y.S.3d 36;  Katz v. Beil, 142 A.D.3d 957, 962, 39 N.Y.S.3d 157;  City Store Gates Mfg. Corp. v. Empire Rolling Steel Gates Corp., 113 A.D.3d 718, 719, 979 N.Y.S.2d 606).  Contrary to the plaintiff's further contention, the counterclaim sounding in fraud was pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) (see Sargiss v. Magarelli, 12 N.Y.3d 527, 530, 881 N.Y.S.2d 651, 909 N.E.2d 573;  Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 486, 860 N.Y.S.2d 422, 890 N.E.2d 184;  Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, 97 N.Y.2d 46, 55, 735 N.Y.S.2d 479, 760 N.E.2d 1274;  Star Auto Sales of Queens, LLC v. Filardo, 203 A.D.3d 865, 868, 165 N.Y.S.3d 100;  Berkovits v. Berkovits, 190 A.D.3d 911, 915, 141 N.Y.S.3d 84;  Goldin v. TAG Virgin Is., Inc., 149 A.D.3d 467, 467, 53 N.Y.S.3d 258;  McDonnell v. Bradley, 109 A.D.3d 592, 594, 970 N.Y.S.2d 612).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend their answer to assert counterclaims sounding in conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract.

DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.