Opinion
10-03-2017
Angelo SLABAKIS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Walter SCHIK, et al., Defendants–Appellants, XYZ Entities 1 Through 10, et al., Defendants.
Smith & Shapiro, New York (Eliad S. Shapiro of Counsel), for appellants. McCarter and English, New York (Judah Skoff of Counsel), for respondent.
Smith & Shapiro, New York (Eliad S. Shapiro of Counsel), for appellants.
McCarter and English, New York (Judah Skoff of Counsel), for respondent.
The court providently exercised its discretion by granting plaintiff leave to replead because one cannot determine, as a matter of law, that he will be unable to allege the requisite elements of the various causes of action (see e.g. Davis v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., 138 A.D.3d 230, 236, 238, 28 N.Y.S.3d 18 [1st Dept.2016] ).
Plaintiff has since repled his complaint; thus, "the sufficiency of the allegations in the earlier complaint is rendered academic" ( Peters v. Peters, 118 A.D.3d 593, 594, 987 N.Y.S.2d 168 [1st Dept.2014] ).
SWEENY, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, KAHN, and GESMER, JJ., concur.