Nussberg v Tatintsian

Nussberg v Tatintsian 2011 NY Slip Op 09205 Decided on December 20, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2011
Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick, JJ.
6415N 650741/09

[*1]Lew Nussberg, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Gary Tatintsian, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Clarick Gueron Reisbaum LLP, New York (Gregory A. Clarick
of counsel), for appellants.
Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP, New York (Frank J. Franzino,
Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 12, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to amend their answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

Defendants' proposed counterclaims alleging that plaintiff knowingly sold forged artworks to defendants, resulting in lost profits and other damages, do not plainly lack merit (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 500 [2010]). Further, plaintiff fails to show that the proposed amendments
would result in prejudice to him that could have been avoided had defendants raised the counterclaims in their original answer (see Murray v City of New York, 51 AD3d 502, 503, lv denied, 11 NY3d 703 [2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011

CLERK