New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PANTELIS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-045-023, Claim No. 115905, Motion No. M-76994


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to amend the answer, granted

Case Information

UID:
2009-045-023
Claimant(s):
FRANZIS PANTELIS
Claimant short name:
PANTELIS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115905
Motion number(s):
M-76994
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Law Offices of Lawrence P. BiondiBy: No appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Pillinger Miller Tarallo, LLPBy: Lawrence J. Buchman, Esq.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 8, 2009
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this Motion: Defendant’s Notice of Motion, Defendant’s Affirmation in Support with the annexed documents, the filed Verified Answer and the filed Claim.

Defendant, State of New York, has brought this motion seeking an order granting leave to amend its answer pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) to assert additional affirmative defenses. The proposed answer contains an additional thirteen affirmative defenses. Claimant, Franzis Pantelis, has not opposed this motion.

CPLR 3025(b) provides that “a party may amend his pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances” (see also 22 NYCRR § 206.7). Courts are vested with broad discretion in determining whether to grant leave to amend, provided there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmoving party and the amendment is not palpably improper or without merit (Yemini v Goldberg, 46 AD3d 806 [2d Dept 2007]; Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnik, 37 AD3d 558 [2d Dept 2007]).

Claimant failed to establish that the proposed amendments would result in prejudice or unfair surprise or that the amendments are palpably improper.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to amend its answer is granted. Defendant is directed to file and serve the amended answer, as tendered with the motion, in haec verba, within thirty days from the date this Decision and Order is filed.


October 8, 2009
Hauppauge, New York

HON. GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims