Case ID: ad2d_242/html/0373-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Magdalena Parker et al., Plaintiffs, v Warren C. Smith et al., Defendants. Medical Personnel Pool of Nassau/Queens, Inc., Plaintiff, v Magdalena Parker et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    (Action No. 1.)
    (Action No. 2.)
    [662 NYS2d 263]
   In two actions joined for trial, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights and duties of the parties with respect to medical insurance coverage, the third-party defendant in Action No. 2 appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered June 6, 1996, as granted that branch of the third-party plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the third-party complaint by adding a demand for punitive damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the third-party plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the third-party complaint by adding a demand for punitive damages is denied.

Although leave to amend a pleading is generally liberally granted (see, McCaskey, Davies & Assocs. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757; CPLR 3025 [b]), if the proposed amendment is patently lacking in merit or its lack of merit is clear and free from doubt, it will not be permitted and leave should be denied as a matter of law (see, McKiernan v McKiernan, 207 AD2d 825; Staines v Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 AD2d 718).

In the instant case, the third-party plaintiffs failed to present “ ‘sufficient evidentiary allegations of ultimate facts of a fraudulent and deceitful scheme in dealing with the general public’ ” (Valis v Allstate Ins. Co., 132 AD2d 658, 659, quoting Holoness Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 75 AD2d 569, 570), or conduct “so ‘willful and wanton’, outrageously immoral, or criminal as to warrant an award of punitive damages” (Kelly v DeFoe Corp., 223 AD2d 529, 530; see, Gilbin v Murphy, 73 NY2d 769; Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401; Sforza v Health Ins. Plan, 210 AD2d 214).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the third-party plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the third-party complaint by adding a demand for punitive damages. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.