Case ID: ad3d_129/html/0527-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v DHL Express (USA), Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
    [10 NYS3d 430]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about August 12, 2014, which denied plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for leave to amend, as the proposed amendment is “palpably insufficient [and] clearly devoid of merit” (Perrotti v Becker; Glynn, Melamed & Muffly LLP, 82 AD3d 495, 498 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eighth Ave. Garage Corp. v H.K.L. Realty Corp., 60 AD3d 404 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 880 [2009]). Seven years after initiating this action, appellants seek to assert three new claims for breach of implied contracts to continue to resell shipping services without any factual basis. The deposition testimony cited by appellants does not support their new claims.

We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.