Gleitman v. Kushner

220 A.D.3d 620, 197 N.Y.S.3d 213, 2023 NY Slip Op 05470

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 31, 2023
• Docket: Index No. 153660/19 Appeal No. 951 Case No. 2022-05534
• Status: Published

Opinion

Gleitman v Kushner (2023 NY Slip Op 05470)

Gleitman v Kushner

2023 NY Slip Op 05470

Decided on October 31, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 31, 2023
Before: Kern, J.P., Friedman, Kennedy, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Index No. 153660/19 Appeal No. 951 Case No. 2022-05534

[*1]Marc Gleitman, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

David Kushner et al., Defendants. Jeffrey Meshel, Nonparty Respondent.

Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellants.

Hahn Eisenberger PLLC, Brooklyn (Elliot Hahn of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2022, which denied plaintiffs' renewed motion to amend his complaint to add nonparty Jeffrey Meshel as a defendant, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the amended complaint deemed served and filed as of the date of this decision.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend. Meshel failed to establish that he would suffer prejudice or surprise if the complaint were amended, as he is already defending a counterclaim asserted against him in a related action based on the same activity that forms the basis of the amended complaint (see St. Nicholas W. 126 L.P. v Republic Inv. Co., LLC, 193 AD3d 488, 488-489 [1st Dept 2021]; Brummer v Wey, 187 AD3d 566, 566 [1st Dept 2020]).

We decline to consider the arguments that Meshel improperly raises for the first time on appeal concerning the insufficiency of the causes of action against him, as those issues are unpreserved for our review (see Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Ho-Shing, 168 AD3d 126, 130 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 107 AD3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2013]).

We have considered Meshel's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 31, 2023