Opinion
2018-11159 Index 704844/16
12-08-2021
Citimortgage, Inc., respondent, v. Ramon A. Peralta, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.
J. A. Sanchez-Dorta, New York, NY, for appellant. Akerman LLP, New York, NY (Jordan M. Smith and Jason St. John of counsel), for respondent.
Submitted - October 28, 2021
J. A. Sanchez-Dorta, New York, NY, for appellant.
Akerman LLP, New York, NY (Jordan M. Smith and Jason St. John of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS WILLIAM G. FORD DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Ramon A. Peralta appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Allan B. Weiss, J.), entered June 20, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, to strike his answer with counterclaims, and for an order of reference and, in effect, denied that defendant's cross motion for leave to amend his answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In April 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a consolidated mortgage encumbering the subject property, which is located in Queens. The defendant Ramon A. Peralta (hereinafter the defendant) served a verified answer with several counterclaims. The plaintiff subsequently moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, to strike his answer with counterclaims, and for an order of reference. The defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for leave to amend his answer, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3025(b). In an order entered June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion and, in effect, denied the defendant's cross motion. The defendant appeals.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his cross motion for leave to amend his answer. "Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" (Tavor v Lane Towers Owners, Inc., 197 A.D.3d 584, 586 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the amendments sought were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Pirelli v OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 A.D.3d 689, 692-693; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wine, 90 A.D.3d 1216, 1218; New York Mtge. Servicing Corp. v Dake, 179 A.D.2d 1007, 1008).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs remaining contentions.
RIVERA, J. P, CHAMBERS, FORD and DOWLING, JJ, concur.