Household Fin. Corp. III v Etseyatse
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 23, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2008-2121 K C.
Household Finance Corp. , Appellant,
against
Henry A. Etseyatse, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D.
Edwards, J.), entered July 24, 2008. The order denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a party defendant.
ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a party defendant is granted.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for breach of a loan agreement. Defendant
initially defaulted in the action, and a judgment was entered against him. In a motion to vacate
the judgment, defendant alleged, inter alia, that he was a victim of identity theft and he had never
obtained a loan from plaintiff. By order dated January 29, 2007, the Civil Court (Peter Paul
Sweeney, J.) vacated the default judgment.
Thereafter, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add "Gloria A. Otomewo"
as a party to the action, asserting her liability for breach of "quasi-contract" or, in the alternative,
based upon unjust enrichment and fraud, on a showing that Otomewo had made payments
pursuant to the agreement. The Civil Court denied the motion on the ground that "plaintiff failed
to establish Gloria A. Otomewo's responsibility on the loan." This appeal ensued.
Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged facts in the amended complaint which, if proven true, could subject Otomewo to personal liability under the loan agreement being sued upon (see Enriquez v Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc., 49 AD3d 496 [2008]). Leave to amend the complaint is to be freely granted, provided the proposed amendment does not prejudice or [*2]surprise the defendant, is not palpably insufficient, and is not patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Kinzer v Bederman, 59 AD3d 496 [2009]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 [2008]). CPLR 3025 does not require an evidentiary showing of merit for the proposed amendment (Lucido, 49 AD3d at 229). The proposed amended complaint in this case is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Furthermore, there is no showing of any prejudice. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a party defendant (see CPLR 1003) is granted.
Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 23, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.