Matthews v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matthews v. City of New York

138 A.D.3d 507, 28 N.Y.S.3d 312

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket815 310549/10

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 507 (Matthews v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. City of New York, 138 A.D.3d 507, 28 N.Y.S.3d 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*508 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 16, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for malicious prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint (see e.g. Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957 [1983]), since the proposed amendment lacked merit (see e.g. Bag Bag v Alcobi, 129 AD3d 649 [1st Dept 2015]). Plaintiff failed to submit “an affidavit of merits and evidentiary proof that could be considered upon a motion for summary judgment” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Despite two years of discovery, he merely submitted his attorney’s affirmation and the proposed amended complaint, verified only by counsel. He submitted no evidence by which to overcome the presumption of probable cause created by his indictment by a grand jury (see Colon v City of New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82-83 [1983]).

In light of the above disposition, we need not consider plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*508 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 16, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for malicious prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint (see e.g. Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957 [1983]), since the proposed amendment lacked merit (see e.g. Bag Bag v Alcobi, 129 AD3d 649 [1st Dept 2015]). Plaintiff failed to submit “an affidavit of merits and evidentiary proof that could be considered upon a motion for summary judgment” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Despite two years of discovery, he merely submitted his attorney’s affirmation and the proposed amended complaint, verified only by counsel. He submitted no evidence by which to overcome the presumption of probable cause created by his indictment by a grand jury (see Colon v City of New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82-83 [1983]).

In light of the above disposition, we need not consider plaintiff’s remaining arguments.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 507, 28 N.Y.S.3d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack