On June 7, 2018, the First Department issued a decision in Central Amusement International LLC v. Lexington Insurance Co., 2018 NY Slip Op. 04095, holding that a plaintiff was not prejudiced by an amendment to an answer, explaining:
The motion court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to amend its answer. Plaintiff’s argument that it was prejudiced at the time of the amendment because it was time-barred from pursuing a professional malpractice claim against its engineer, is unavailing. The motion court correctly observed that plaintiff had the opportunity and duty to perform its own investigation to uncover potential culpable conduct by its contractors, engineers, or any other party that may have contributed to the loss, but it chose not to do so. Plaintiff has also not established the validity of its prejudice claim, as it never attempted to sue its engineer (or other third party) following the disclosure of defendant’s expert report. The claim that defendant’s production of the expert report was delayed finds no support since it was timely produced during expert discovery.
(Internal citations omitted).
In New York, the courts are very generous in allowing a party to amend its pleadings. However, there are limits to this generosity. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at firstname.lastname@example.org if you or a client have a question regarding whether it is too late to amend your claims or answer.
Click here to subscribe to this or another of Schlam Stone & Dolan’s blogs.