MBIA Insurance v. Greystone & Co.
N.Y. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 20263502 Partners LLC v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026S.T.A. Parking Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026Estate of Walling v. Karlstein N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026SC Philips Clark LLC v. Shore Club Prop. Owner LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026Bohlen v. Salamon N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026Gonzalez v. De Maurier N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026Reyes v. 44-45 Broadway Realty Co. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026274 Madison Ave. Co. LLC v. CAAM, LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026Matter of Guerrand N.Y. Surr. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2026Nunez v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
Cites 2 cases
- Lucido v. Mancuso
- Jacobson v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
MBIA Insurance Corporation, Respondent, v Greystone & Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered December 4, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In granting the motion, the court permitted plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil and add Stephen Rosenberg as a party defendant. Plaintiff had learned in the course of certain deposition testimony that Rosenberg was the 100% owner and sole director of the corporate defendant, whose primary, if not only, source of income was the periodic capital contributions made to it by Rosenberg. Motions for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]), absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom (see Jacobson v McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharms., 68 AD3d 652 [2009]), unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.
On a motion for leave to amend,- plaintiff need not establish the merit of its proposed new allegations (Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 [2008]), but simply show that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit (Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 AD3d 363, 366 [2007]), which it has done. Contrary to the corporate defendant’s argument,-the proposed amendment was supported by a sufficient showing of merit through the submission of an affirmation by counsel, along with a transcript of relevant deposition testimony. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.