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.
Courthouse Corporate Center, LLC, respondent, v Richard Schulman, etc., et al., appellants.
Argued—October 6, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated June 23, 2010, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action was based on matters that could have been, but were not, raised in the defendants' prior motion for summary judgment. Multiple motions for summary judgment in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly-discovered evidence or other sufficient cause (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v. McClier Corp., 83 AD3d 426, 427; Flomenhaft v Fine Arts Museum of Long Is., 255 A.D.2d 290; Dillon v. Dean, 170 A.D.2d 574). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion.
In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments were “neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that the amendment would prejudice or surprise the defendant[s]” (Fusca v. A & S Constr., LLC, 84 AD3d 1155, 1158; see Gitlin v. Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010–08980 (Index No. 8295 /08)
Decided: November 01, 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)