Ocean v Strivers Gardens Condominium Assn.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ocean v Strivers Gardens Condominium Assn. 2017 NY Slip Op 31167(U) May 30, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154702/2016 Judge: Kathryn E. Freed Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2017 11:26 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 INDEX NO. 154702/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: 2 PART HON. KATHRYN, E. FREED, J.S.C. Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X AMIRA OCEAN, INDEX NO. 154702/2016 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. -vSTRIVERS GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. NEW BEDFORD MANAGEMENT CORP., ROCK GROUP NY CORP., 002 DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Amend Complaint were read on this application to/for Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the motion is granted. Plaintiff Amira Ocean commenced this personal injury action against defendants Strivers Gardens Condominium Association ("Strivers"), New Bedford Management Corp. ("New Bedford"), and Rock Group NY Corp. on June 3, 2016. Ex. A. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was injured on February 24, 2016 at 300 West 135th Street, New York, New York due to the negligence of the defendants. In February of 2017, Strivers and New Bedford produced responses to plaintiffs discovery demands reflecting that Rock Scaffolding Corp. ("Rock Scaffolding"), Yates Restoration Group LTD ("Yates"), and Superstructures Engineers and Architects ("Superstructures") may have performed work which caused ·or contributed to the 2 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2017 11:26 AM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 INDEX NO. 154702/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017 alleged injuries. Ex. B. Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), to amend the complaint to name Rock Scaffolding, Yates, and Superstructures as defendants. Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b ), a party may amend its pleading at any time by leave of court, and leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just. It is within the court's discretion whether to permit a party to amend its complaint. See Peach Parking Corp. v 345 W. 401h Street, LLC, 43 AD3d 82 (1st Dept 2007). On a motion for leave to amend, a plaintiff need not establish the merit of its proposed new allegations (see Lucindo v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 [1st Dept 2008]), but must show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient and not clearly devoid of merit. See Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 AD3d 363, 366 (P1 Dept 2007); MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499 (1st Dept 2010). Here, plaintiff has established, based on the discovery responses provided by Strivers and New Bedford, that the claims against the proposed additional defendants have a colorable basis (see NAB Construction Corp. v Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 167 AD2d 301 [1st Dept 1990]). The absence of any prejudice to the proposed new defendants is evident from their failure to oppose the instant motion despite being served with the same. Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add Rock Scaffolding Corp., Yates Restoration Group LTD, and Superstructures Engineers and Architects as additional defendants is granted; and it is further, 3 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2017 11:26 AM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 INDEX NO. 154702/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017 ORDERED that the supplemental summons and amended verified complaint, in the proposed form annexed to the moving papers in Exhibit D, shall be deemed served upon service of a copy of this order with noiice of entry upon all parties who have appeared in the action; and it is further, ORDERED that the supplemental summons and amended verified summons and complaint, in the form annexed to the motion papers, shall be served, in accordance with the CPLR, upon Rock Scaffolding Corp., Yates Restoration Group LTD, and Superstructures Engineers and Architects American Chiropractic Care, P.C ., the additional parties to this action, within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further, ORDERED that the caption of this action will hereinafter read as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------X AMIRA OCEAN, Plaintiff, -vSTRIVERS GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, NEW BEDFORD MANAGEMENT CORP, ROCK GROUP NY CORP., ROCK SCAFFOLDING CORP., YATES RESTORATION GROUP LTO and SUPERSTRUCTURES ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, ) Defendants. ----------------------------------:...-------------'-------------------------X And it is further, 154702/2016 OCEAN, AMIRA vs. STRIVERS GARDENS CONDOMINIUM Motion No. 002 4 of 5 Page 2 of4 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/01/2017 11:26 AM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 INDEX NO. 154702/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017 ORDERED that plaintiffs counsel shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties and upon the County Clerk (Room 141 B) and the Clerk of the Trial Support Office (Room 158) and the Clerks are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the additional parties to the caption of this action; and it is further, ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of this Court. <~J.S.C 5/30/2017 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D · ~ DENIED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 15470212016 OCEAN, AMIRA vs. STRIVERS GARDENS CONDOMINIUM Motion No. 002 5 of 5 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 3 of 4

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.