Opinion
635 CA 21-00810
11-18-2022
Robert DIGIACCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Mary Ann Grassi, Plaintiff, v. GRENELL ISLAND CHAPEL, Defendant-Respondent.
BOUSQUET HOLSTEIN PLLC, SYRACUSE (GREGORY D. ERIKSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BOUSQUET HOLSTEIN PLLC, SYRACUSE (GREGORY D. ERIKSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.
Memorandum: In this action seeking, among other things, to quiet title to real property, Robert DiGiacco (plaintiff) appeals from an order denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint to add causes of action for slander of title and removal of a cloud on title by reformation or cancellation of a deed.
We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion. "Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit" ( Uhteg v. Kendra , 200 A.D.3d 1695, 1699, 161 N.Y.S.3d 596 [4th Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3025 [b] ). "A court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face " ( Matter of Clairol Dev., LLC v. Village of Spencerport , 100 A.D.3d 1546, 1546, 954 N.Y.S.2d 389 [4th Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added]; see generally Great Lakes Motor Corp. v. Johnson , 156 A.D.3d 1369, 1371, 68 N.Y.S.3d 614 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Here, we conclude that the court erred in denying the motion inasmuch as there was no showing of prejudice arising from the proposed amendments (see generally Greco v. Grande , 160 A.D.3d 1345, 1346, 76 N.Y.S.3d 345 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Williams v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.[Appeal No. 2] , 108 A.D.3d 1112, 1114, 969 N.Y.S.2d 292 [4th Dept. 2013] ) and the proposed amended complaint adequately asserts causes of action for slander of title (see 39 Coll. Point Corp. v. Transpac Capital Corp. , 27 A.D.3d 454, 455, 810 N.Y.S.2d 520 [2d Dept. 2006] ; Fink v. Shawangunk Conservancy, Inc. , 15 A.D.3d 754, 756, 790 N.Y.S.2d 249 [3d Dept. 2005] ; see generally Pelc v. Berg , 68 A.D.3d 1672, 1674, 893 N.Y.S.2d 404 [4th Dept. 2009] ) and removal of a cloud on title by reformation or cancellation of a deed (see Nurse v. Rios , 160 A.D.3d 888, 888, 76 N.Y.S.3d 70 [2d Dept. 2018] ; see generally Fonda v. Sage , 48 N.Y. 173, 181 [1872] ). In making its determination that the proposed causes of action were palpably insufficient, the court improperly looked beyond the face of the proposed pleading to the documents establishing the chain of title to plaintiffs’ properties and a 2011 deed from the Trustees of Grenell Island Chapel to defendant.