Second Department Reminds Us Plaintiff Doesn’t Need to Correctly Plead Date of Accident
It really doesn’t matter when the accident happened.
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court, Queens County Order that granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint and denied defendant’s motion to renew its prior motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(7).
In Castilla v. 37-25 12th St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02183, plaintiff was allegedly injured while performing construction work within the scope of his employed at a worksite owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging violations of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6). In the complaint, plaintiff identified the date of loss as October 12, 2018. Prior to answering the complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to § 3211(a)(7), which the Supreme Court Queens County later denied. Plaintiff then moved for leave to amend the complaint to change the date of the subject incident from October 12, 2018, to October 13, 2018. Defendants then cross-moved for leave to renew its prior motion to dismiss.
The Supreme Court, Queens County granted plaintiff’s motion and the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed. In its decision, the Second Department noted that the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise, or that the plaintiff’s proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.
As for the motion to renew, the Supreme Court, Queens County denied the defendants’ motion to renew its previous motion to dismiss, as they failed to establish any new facts that would change the prior determination of its prior motion. Whether plaintiff’s accident took place on October 12, 2018, or October 13, 2018, was irrelevant to whether plaintiff failed to state causes of action.
Another reminder from the Second Department that amendments to pleadings are to be freely granted, including alterations to the date of the alleged accident.
The Castillo decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.