From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lang v. Dachs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-11028, 2002-05319

Argued February 26, 2003.

March 24, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover a down payment in connection with the sale of real property, the defendant appeals (1), as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated November 30, 2001, as granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for specific performance, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, entered March 21, 2002, as denied his cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for specific preformance.

Paul Dachs, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Koplen, Nanuet, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order dated November 30, 2001, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for specific performance is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered March 21, 2002, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

Although leave to amend a pleading should generally be liberally granted (see McCaskey, Davies Assoc. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 A.D.2d 718), if the proposed amendment is patently lacking in merit or its lack of merit is clear and free from doubt, it will not be permitted and leave should be denied as a matter of law (see McKiernan v. McKiernan, 207 A.D.2d 825; Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group, supra).

In the instant case, there was no evidence in the record, at the time that the motion was decided, indicating that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close on the law date. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for specific performance (see Posner v. Central Synagogue, 202 A.D.2d 284; Public Improvements v. Parker Const. Corp., 59 A.D.2d 671).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lang v. Dachs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 2003
303 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lang v. Dachs

Case Details

Full title:JOEL LANG, respondent, v. PAUL DACHS, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 24, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 787

Citing Cases

Araenas v. European Bldrs. Contr. Corp.

In opposition, the plaintiff cross-moves for leave to amended his supplemental bill of particulars to include…

Polizzi v. Profaci

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring the…