From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sports Advisory Grp. v. Long Island Lizards

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 17, 2016
142 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

08-17-2016

SPORTS ADVISORY GROUP, etc., respondent, v. LONG ISLAND LIZARDS, also known as New York Lizards, appellant.

Peter G. Lavrenchik, Melville, N.Y. (Tyler R. Rossworn of counsel), for appellant. Peter H. Levy, Jericho, NY, for respondent.


Peter G. Lavrenchik, Melville, N.Y. (Tyler R. Rossworn of counsel), for appellant.

Peter H. Levy, Jericho, NY, for respondent.

In an action to recover a brokerage commission, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered March 25, 2014, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the caption of the summons and complaint, and the second paragraph of the complaint, to name “Long Island Lizards, also known as New York Lizards” as the defendant, instead of the named defendant, Long Island Lizards. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the Long Island Lizards, also known as New York Lizards, a professional lacrosse team, to recover a brokerage commission it claims it is entitled to pursuant to an agreement to procure a buyer of the team. The action was commenced after the team was sold, but before the new owner changed the name of the team to the New York Lizards. The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the caption of the summons and complaint, and the second paragraph of the complaint, to reflect the name change was granted and the defendant appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 305(c), “[a]t any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced.” Here, the plaintiff did not seek to add a new party. Rather, it merely sought to amend the caption to reflect that the defendant's name had been changed. Since the defendant failed to establish that it would be prejudiced by the amendment, the motion was properly granted (see Ober v. Rye Town Hilton, 159 A.D.2d 16, 557 N.Y.S.2d 937 ).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sports Advisory Grp. v. Long Island Lizards

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 17, 2016
142 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Sports Advisory Grp. v. Long Island Lizards

Case Details

Full title:SPORTS ADVISORY GROUP, etc., respondent, v. LONG ISLAND LIZARDS, also…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 17, 2016

Citations

142 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5805
36 N.Y.S.3d 604

Citing Cases

Torres-Gomez v. Veolia Transp. Servs.

Here, the plaintiff did not seek to add a new party. Rather, it merely sought to amend the caption to reflect…