From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buccigrossi v. Glatman

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

No. 2020-07593 Index No. 151155/18

03-08-2023

Philip Buccigrossi, et al., appellants, v. Josh Glatman, etc., respondent.

Jeffrey Samel & Partners, New York, NY (Robert G. Spevack of counsel), for appellants. Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island, NY (Adriana M. Solimeo of counsel), for respondent.


Jeffrey Samel & Partners, New York, NY (Robert G. Spevack of counsel), for appellants.

Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island, NY (Adriana M. Solimeo of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P. ROBERT J. MILLER, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated September 14, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although leave to amend a pleading should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see CPLR 3025[b]), a motion for leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see J.W. Mays, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 153 A.D.3d 1386, 1387). Further, "[w]hether to grant such leave is within the motion court's discretion, the exercise of which will not be lightly disturbed" (Pergament v Roach, 41 A.D.3d 569, 572). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The plaintiffs' allegations are palpably insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct evinced a high degree of moral culpability or constituted willful or wanton negligence or recklessness (see Gioio v Ching Fu Lin, 173 A.D.3d 982, 982-983; Dmytryszyn v Herschman, 78 A.D.3d 1108, 1109-1110; Morton v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 A.D.3d 381; see generally Gomez v Cabatic, 159 A.D.3d 62).

IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buccigrossi v. Glatman

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Buccigrossi v. Glatman

Case Details

Full title:Philip Buccigrossi, et al., appellants, v. Josh Glatman, etc., respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 2023

Citations

2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)