From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

16 W. 8th, LLC v. Gluckman

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 2023
222 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

1201 Index No. 162163/14 Case No. 2022–03940

12-12-2023

16 WEST 8TH LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas GLUCKMAN et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (David J. Kanfer of counsel), for appellant. Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP, New York (Alexander Litt of counsel), for Thomas Gluckman and Roby Gluckman, respondents Guzov, LLC, New York (Anne W. Salisbury of counsel), for Matthew Modine, Caridad Modine and The Modine Family Trust, respondents.


Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (David J. Kanfer of counsel), for appellant.

Moritt Hock & Hamroff, LLP, New York (Alexander Litt of counsel), for Thomas Gluckman and Roby Gluckman, respondents

Guzov, LLC, New York (Anne W. Salisbury of counsel), for Matthew Modine, Caridad Modine and The Modine Family Trust, respondents.

Kern, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Rodriguez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Latin, J.), entered September 1, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaints to add a claim for gross negligence, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaints to add a claim for gross negligence. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, even assuming that the amendment would not prejudice defendants, that alone is insufficient to mandate granting leave to amend, as leave will be denied if the proposed amendment is "palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" ( MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 500, 901 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Plaintiff's gross negligence claim is patently devoid of merit because it fails to plead a legal duty independent of the duties derived from plaintiff's contractual easement rights (see e.g. Clark–Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190 [1987] ). Plaintiff's claims stem from defendants’ respective decisions to perform construction work in contravention of the terms of the contractual easements. As such, plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a legal duty independent of that created in the parties’ easements (see Givoldi, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., 286 A.D.2d 220, 221, 729 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept. 2001] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

16 W. 8th, LLC v. Gluckman

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 12, 2023
222 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

16 W. 8th, LLC v. Gluckman

Case Details

Full title:16 West 8th LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas Gluckman et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 12, 2023

Citations

222 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 6327
202 N.Y.S.3d 25

Citing Cases

Feehan v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Moreover, he fails to show how the documents incorporated into the amended complaint support his claim. [2]…

Feehan v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.

The motion court properly denied plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings, as the proposed amendment is…