GARCIA v. MILLER (2025)

The following paper numbered 1 was read on this motion:

Paper Number

Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits 1

Plaintiff brings his motion seeking to amend his complaint in this car accident case to correct an error. The error is that plaintiff only named defendant Michael P. Miller as a defendant, when he should have also included Van Miller. Van Miller was the operator of the other vehicle involved in the accident, and Michael P. Miller is the owner of that car.

The Court notes that plaintiff did serve both Millers with the complaint, and both of them filed answers (separately, although it was the same counsel). In their answers, they acknowledged that Van was driving Michael's car at the time of the accident.

There does not appear to be any reason to deny the motion. It is long settled that “CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to amend a pleading ‘shall be freely given.’ Thus, leave should be given 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.” US Bank, N.A. v. Primiano, 140 AD3d 857, 857, 32 N.Y.S.3d 643, 644 (2d Dept. 2016). As defendants already filed answers, there is no possible prejudice.

In future, plaintiff (1) shall file affidavits of service for all motions, even if the parties are served by NYSCEF; and (2) plaintiff shall include a proposed Order with similar motions.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Linda S. Jamieson, J.