Opinion
Index No. 159450/2014 Motion Seq. No. 018
05-15-2024
JAMES EDSTROM, JOHN BRAND Plaintiff, v. ST. NICKS ALLIANCE, CORP. A/K/A 19 MAUGER ST. HDFC, Defendant.
John F. McHugh, Esq., New York, New York, for Plaintiff. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, New York, New York, (Ryan Sestack, Esq., of counsel) for Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
Motion Date 03/05/2024
John F. McHugh, Esq., New York, New York, for Plaintiff.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, New York, New York, (Ryan Sestack, Esq., of counsel) for Defendant.
PRESENT: HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA, Justice
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS. APPEARANCES:
In this action for an alleged breach of the warranty of habitability, JAMES EDSTROM and JOHN BRAND ("plaintiffs") move against ST. NICKS ALLIANCE, CORP. A/K/A 19 MAUGER ST. HDFC, ("defendant") for an order (1) permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add claims for "actual and punitive damages," and an order (2) baring defendant from introducing certain evidence. Defendant opposes the motion.
For the forgoing reasons, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
By notice of motion (sequence number 015), dated May 29, 2019, defendant ST. NICKS ALLIANCE, CORP. A/K/A 19 MAUGER ST. HDFC, moved, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and cross-moved, among other things, for leave to file a second amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages to each cause of action in the first amended complaint. By Decision and Order, dated July 28, 2020, the Court (N. Bannon, J.S.C) (1) granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety and (2) denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Addressing the cause of action for punitive damages, the same court held "[p]unitive damages is not an independent cause of action, and the plaintiffs have no underlying substantive cause of action upon which an award of punitive damages may be grounded" (Decision and Order, dated July 28, 2020 [N. Bannon, J.S.C], citing Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 83 N.Y.2d 603 [1994] and Mayes v UVI Holdings, Inc., 280 A.D.2d 153 [1st Dept 2001]).
Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department (see NYSCEF #231), seeking to have their claims reinstated and their application to amend the complaint granted. Upon review, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified the decision and order (N. Bannon, JSC) only to the extent of reinstating plaintiffs' cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, and otherwise affirmed said decision and order (see Edstrom v. St. Nicks Alliance Corp., 194 A.D.3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2021]).
Regarding the denial of Paintiffs' cross motion to, among other things, amend the complaint to add actual and punitive damages, the First Department concluded the "proposed of amendments . . . were devoid of merit as a matter of law" (Edstrom 194 A.D.3d at 519 [1st Dept 2021] [emphasis added], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1136 [2021]; citing Risk Control Assoc. Ins. Group v Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, P.C., 151 A.D.3d 527, 527 [1st Dept 2017] [holding that "(1)eave to amend pleadings is freely granted, unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit"], lv dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1196 [2 019]) . In addition, the governing Appellate Division explicitly stated that the panel "considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and f[ound] them unavailing" (Edstrom 194 A.D.3d at 519).
Now, plaintiffs move again for leave to file a second amended complaint to ask for actual and punitive damages, and for an order in limine. Specifically, plaintiffs' motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence at trial based on plaintiffs' alleged spoliation of material evidence when they "destroyed the best evidence" from security camera footage, and for a missing witness charge based on defendant's alleged effort to prevent the appearance of a key witness, namely the security guard of the subject property.
Defendant opposes the motion in its entirety, arguing it ignores the law of the case, and it is irrelevant to the only cause of action remaining, the warranty of habitability.
ANALYSIS
Amend Complaint
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim of punitive damages is denied based on the law of case. The doctrine of the "law of the case" generally operates to "preclude successive motions by the same party upon the same proof" (see Ruiz v Anderson, 96 A.D.3d 691 [1st Dept 2012]; see also J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 A.D.3d 809 [2d Dept 2007] [providing "[a]n appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court"]).
Here, plaintiffs previously cross moved to amend the complaint to add the same claim of punitive damages, and the Court (N. Bannon, JSC) denied said amendment (see NY St Cts Elec filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 211, memorandum of law in support of cross-motion, at 1, 5, and 37). Further, on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed that part of the decision and order (N. Bannon, JSC) denying said relief, finding the proposed amendments "devoid of merit as a matter of law" (see Edstrom 194 A.D.3d at 519).
Motion In Limine
Plaintiffs' motion in limine is also duplicative of contentions raised in its previous cross motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Appellate Division considered and determined on appeal (see id. [providing the panel "considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them without merit"]). Plaintiffs first argument in the subject motion -- that defendant destroyed or failed to produce the "best evidence" --is found both in their memorandum of law in support of cross-motion, and memorandum of law in further support of cross-motion (see NYSCEF Doc No. 211 at 4, 7, 14-15 and 18-19; see also NYSCEF Doc No. 224, memorandum of law in further support of cross-motion, at 5-6). The same is true of plaintiffs' current request for a missing witness charge and for preclusion of certain evidence at trial (see NYSCEF Doc No. 211 at 20-24) .
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion is denied in its entirety.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.