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.
BARNES COY ARCHITECTS, P.C., appellant, v. David SHAMOON, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 25, 2008, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract is granted, and the amended complaint attached to the motion papers is deemed served.
In the original complaint, the plaintiff asserted, inter alia, a cause of action to recover damages for breach of an “Architect Agreement.” Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations and increase the ad damnum clause with respect to that cause of action. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion, as the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the defendants (see CPLR 3025[b]; Lynch v. Lynch, 47 A.D.3d 771, 772, 849 N.Y.S.2d 181; see also Bennett v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 51 A.D.3d 959, 859 N.Y.S.2d 470; Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238, lv. granted 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 68750[U], 2008 WL 943807 [2d Dept. 2008] ).
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.
Decided: July 01, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)