Opinion
09 Civ. 8742 (RWS).
August 26, 2010
HAVKINS ROSENFELD RITZERT VARRIALE, LLP, New York, NY, By: Abraham E. Havkins, Esq., WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY JOHN LTD., Chicago, IL, By: Michael C. Bruck, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
FURMAN, KORNFELD BRENNAN LLP, New York, NY, By: Andrew S. Kowlowitz, Esq., Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION
Plaintiffs American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (together, the "Plaintiffs") have moved for leave to amend their complaint to add as defendants several individual attorneys associated with Defendant Barry, McTiernan Moore (the "Defendant"). Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is granted.
Prior Proceedings
On October 15, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant committed legal malpractice in its representation of Plaintiffs in litigation regarding Plaintiffs' coverage of a construction company that was found liable for a fire that caused serious property damage at a synagogue in New York City. The combined judgment against Plaintiffs in the coverage action exceeded $16,000,000.
At a pretrial conference in April 2010, Plaintiffs agreed to move for leave to amend their complaint on or before June 21, 2010. On June 21, 2010, rather than submitting a motion to amend, Plaintiffs filed an amended of undue delay, futility, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice. See Foman, 371 U.S. at 182-83.
Defendant cites two cases in support of its contention that the addition of individual attorneys is impermissible. In Cunard Line Ltd. v. Abney, 540 F. Supp. 657, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), the Court noted that "`resort may be had against [individual partners] only if the joint or partnership property is insufficient to pay the firm debts or it appears there can be no effective remedy without resort to individual property.'" Id. at 659-60 (quoting Wisnouse v. Telsey, 367 F. Supp. 855, 859 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)). In Vets North, Inc. v. Libutti, No. CV-01-7773, 2003 WL 21542554, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2003), the Court observed that under New York law, "any judgment recovered by the plaintiff in [an action against a partnership] is entered as a judgment against all of the partners" and that such a judgment will be satisfied out of individual partner assets if "the partnership assets are found to be insufficient to satisfy the obligation." While these cases suggest that adding individual partners may ultimately be redundant, they do not preclude Plaintiffs from adding individual partners and attorneys as defendants.
Conclusion
Based on the facts and conclusions set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is granted.
It is so ordered.