On August 03, 2015 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Tanya Mallory,
and
Consolidated Edison Company Of New York, Inc.,
Jacob A. Rivers,
Robinson S. Kassiem,
The City Of New York,
Verizon New York, Inc.,
for Tort
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
= .: INDEX NO. 452540/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
ON. LETICIA Mi. RAMIAEZ
PRESENT JSC PART22.
Justice
Tr
Index Number : 452540/2015 is
MALLORY, TANYA INDEX NO.
VS.
CITY OF NEW YORK
3 MOTION DATE
SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 “« MOTION SEQ. NO.
AMEND CAPTION/PARTIES te
The following papers, numbered 1 to _ DX , were read on this motion to/fos. Ame nd { AL gersh nes
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits !No(s). (
Answering Affidavits — Exhibits ENojs)
Replying Affidavits TNojs)
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is
Plaintiff's motion, pursuant to CPLR §3025(b), for leave to supplement the Summons and amend
the Complaint to add Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. as
defendants in this action is denied, without prejudice. Although motions for leave to amend pleadings are
generally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom, the movant must make a showing that
the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. See, Nichols v Curtis,
104 A.D.3d 26 (1" Dept. 2013), where the Court held that a motion for leave to amend must be supported
by “an affidavit of merits and such other evidence as is appropriate on a motion for summary judgment
See also, Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107 (1" Dept. 1998)
Here, plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of merit or any other admissible evidence in support of
the instant motion. Although plaintiff's attorney, in his affirmation, mentions that plaintiff became aware
of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc.’s involvement in the
subject accident from a recent response to a FOIL request, plaintiff did not submit the certified FOIL
request response/records to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or
42 patently devoid of merit
It is well settled that an affirmation from an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts is
hearsay, and therefore, has no probative value. Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.24-557 (1980), 7)
Dated:
3/3dib
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied, without prejudice
The Clerk is directed to issue a Case Scheduling Order. LENT
7.
we
ih
wees Sm kein Fit
1. CHECK ONE: . les
ee T OEE HisPOsED JRCNON-FINAL orsrosttin
2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: MOTION | CIGRANTED CXGENIED CIGRANTED IN PART COOTHER
3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: CSETTLE ORDER CSuBMIT ORDER
(D0 not Post CIFIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT = [_] REFERENCE
lofl
Document Filed Date
April 01, 2016
Case Filing Date
August 03, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
= .: INDEX NO. 452540/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ON. LETICIA Mi. RAMIAEZ PRESENT JSC PART22. Justice Tr Index Number : 452540/2015 is MALLORY, TANYA INDEX NO. VS. CITY OF NEW YORK 3 MOTION DATE SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 “« MOTION SEQ. NO. AMEND CAPTION/PARTIES te The following papers, numbered 1 to _ DX , were read on this motion to/fos. Ame nd { AL gersh nes Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits !No(s). ( Answering Affidavits — Exhibits ENojs) Replying Affidavits TNojs) Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is Plaintiff's motion, pursuant to CPLR §3025(b), for leave to supplement the Summons and amend the Complaint to add Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc. as defendants in this action is denied, without prejudice. Although motions for leave to amend pleadings are generally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom, the movant must make a showing that the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. See, Nichols v Curtis, 104 A.D.3d 26 (1" Dept. 2013), where the Court held that a motion for leave to amend must be supported by “an affidavit of merits and such other evidence as is appropriate on a motion for summary judgment See also, Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 107 (1" Dept. 1998) Here, plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of merit or any other admissible evidence in support of the instant motion. Although plaintiff's attorney, in his affirmation, mentions that plaintiff became aware of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Verizon New York, Inc.’s involvement in the subject accident from a recent response to a FOIL request, plaintiff did not submit the certified FOIL request response/records to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or 42 patently devoid of merit It is well settled that an affirmation from an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts is hearsay, and therefore, has no probative value. Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.24-557 (1980), 7) Dated: 3/3dib Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied, without prejudice The Clerk is directed to issue a Case Scheduling Order. LENT 7. we ih wees Sm kein Fit 1. CHECK ONE: . les ee T OEE HisPOsED JRCNON-FINAL orsrosttin 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: MOTION | CIGRANTED CXGENIED CIGRANTED IN PART COOTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: CSETTLE ORDER CSuBMIT ORDER (D0 not Post CIFIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT = [_] REFERENCE lofl