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.
Jeannine Ferriola, et al., respondents, v. Peter DiMarzio, et al., defendants, Charles Barresi, appellant.
Submitted—March 23, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the defendant Charles Barresi appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated August 19, 2010, as denied his motion for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense that the amended complaint fails to name necessary and indispensable parties.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In the absence of significant prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025[b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959) unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Bernardi v. Spyratos, 79 AD3d 684, 688; Malanga v. Chamberlain, 71 AD3d 644, 646; Unger v. Leviton, 25 AD3d 689, 690). The appellant's proposed amendment to his answer, in which he seeks to add the affirmative defense that the amended complaint fails to name necessary and indispensable parties, was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit. The appellant failed to establish that the nonparties Delidakis Construction Co., Inc., and Donna Freedhand Design were anything more than joint tortfeasors. Since joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties (see CPLR 1001[a]; Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 62; Peak v Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C., 28 AD3d 1028, 1030; Amsellem v. Host Marriott Corp., 280 A.D.2d 357, 359; Wolstencroft v. Sassower, 124 A.D.2d 582; Siskind v. Levy, 13 A.D.2d 538, 539), the proposed affirmative defense was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense that the amended complaint fails to name necessary and indispensable parties.
DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN, 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: 2010–09235 (Index No. 1100 /05)
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)