From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinstein v. W.W.W. Assocs.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2019
178 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

10527 Index 652365/14

12-10-2019

Jeffrey WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. W.W.W. ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville (Michael B. Shulman of counsel), for appellants. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (David R. Brody of counsel), for respondent.


Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville (Michael B. Shulman of counsel), for appellants.

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C., New York (David R. Brody of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Oing, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered July 27, 2018, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted in part plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Given that defendants failed to show any significant prejudice from plaintiff's amendment of the complaint, the court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment in part (see Kocourek v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. , 85 A.D.3d 502, 504, 925 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Nor are the highly detailed allegations of the proposed amended complaint, which are supported by extensive documentary evidence, "palpably insufficient" (see Cruz v. Brown , 129 A.D.3d 455, 456, 11 N.Y.S.3d 33 [1st Dept. 2015] ).

Defendants were unable to articulate any inequitable effect a judgment in this case would have on nonparty 553 Shore Road Corp., given that the corporation was dissolved in 2011. Since, at most, 553 is a joint tortfeasor, it is not a necessary party (see Amsellem v. Host Marriott Corp. , 280 A.D.2d 357, 360, 721 N.Y.S.2d 318 [1st Dept. 2001] ).

Defendants' failure to identify any of the supposed managing members on their tax returns, together with defendant Leon Weinstein's statement in the verified answer and at his deposition that he was the managing member of defendant W.W.W. Associates, LLC, and the contested role of defendants in the management of W.W.W. and its alleged managing members, presents an issue of fact as to whether Leon and defendant Kenneth Weinstein owed fiduciary duties to plaintiff (see Mahoney–Buntzman v. Buntzman , 12 N.Y.3d 415, 422, 881 N.Y.S.2d 369, 909 N.E.2d 62 [2009] ; Arfa v. Zamir , 75 A.D.3d 443, 905 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1st Dept. 2010] ). We decline to reach defendants' unpreserved arguments (see Matter of Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Fin. Bd. , 107 A.D.3d 544, 545, 971 N.Y.S.2d 265 [1st Dept. 2013] ).


Summaries of

Weinstein v. W.W.W. Assocs.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 10, 2019
178 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Weinstein v. W.W.W. Assocs.

Case Details

Full title:Jeffrey Weinstein, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. W.W.W. Associates, LLC, et…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 2019

Citations

178 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
111 N.Y.S.3d 544
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 8803

Citing Cases

People v. Austin

Austin's insistence on including the prior Trustee to the Rabbi Fund, Wells Fargo, A.G. Edwards, and the…

McMahon v. Doe

es, in light of the dismissal of a foreclosure action that Cobblestone commenced to foreclose on plaintiffs'…