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.
Antoinette Joazard, et al., appellants, v. Orchid Joazard, etc., et al., respondents.
Submitted—March 14, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, which was transferred from the Supreme Court, Queens County, to the Surrogate's Court, Kings County, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Johnson, S.), dated February 1, 2010, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a proposed fifth cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a proposed fifth cause of action is granted.
In denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a proposed fifth cause of action seeking to recover under a promissory note, which was allegedly assigned to the plaintiffs, the Surrogate's Court failed to acknowledge the plaintiffs' allegations that a document discharging the underlying debt was executed in error. Considering those allegations, it cannot be said that the proposed fifth cause of action is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220; cf. Matter of Barclays Bank of N.Y., 96 A.D.2d 594; Krause v. Hullar, 135 Misc. 837). Contrary to the defendants' contention, “[n]o evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)” (Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 229). We express no opinion as to the ultimate merit of the proposed cause of action.
That branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a proposed sixth cause of action was not addressed by the Surrogate's Court and, thus, remains pending and undecided (see Fremont Inv. & Loan v. Delsol, 65 AD3d 1013, 1015; Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536, 542–543).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–02788 (Index No. 4326 /07)
Decided: April 05, 2011
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)