From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Dev., L.P.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 20, 2013
111 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-20

BLINDS TO GO (U.S.), INC., respondent, v. TIMES PLAZA DEVELOPMENT, L.P., appellant.

Kenneth J. Glassman, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Richard Gabriele of counsel), for respondent.


Kenneth J. Glassman, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Richard Gabriele of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 28, 2012, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to assert additional affirmative defenses and counterclaims, as they were either palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit ( see T & V. Constr., Inc. v. Calapai, 90 A.D.3d 908, 909, 935 N.Y.S.2d 68; G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v. Lazzari, 44 A.D.3d 95, 99, 840 N.Y.S.2d 378, affd.10 N.Y.3d 941, 862 N.Y.S.2d 855, 893 N.E.2d 133). RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, CHAMBERS and HALL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Dev., L.P.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 20, 2013
111 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Dev., L.P.

Case Details

Full title:BLINDS TO GO (U.S.), INC., respondent, v. TIMES PLAZA DEVELOPMENT, L.P.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 20, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
111 A.D.3d 776
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7704