Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviews a trial court's denial of a plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) to amend a legal malpractice complaint. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting leave to add a cause of action alleging that former attorneys negligently failed to claim a tax credit awarded in the plaintiff's underlying matrimonial proceeding. The court held that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay in seeking leave to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint under CPLR 3025(b).
- Whether the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.
Holdings
- The appellate division reversed the order and granted the motion, holding that leave to amend shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise and that the proposed amendment was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.
Key quotations
“Generally, leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.” (*2)
“The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise falls upon the party opposing the motion.” (*2)
Factual background
David Parkoff sued his former attorneys, Rieger & Fried, LLP, alleging they negligently failed to claim a tax‑credit awarded in his divorce proceeding. He sought damages for legal malpractice and argued that the proposed amendment to his complaint properly described the alleged negligence.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a legal‑malpractice action in September 2021. In June 2023 he moved for leave to amend the complaint to add a fifth cause of action. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County denied the motion. The plaintiff appealed.