Case Name: 17 East 96th Street Owners Corp., Appellant, v. Madison 96th Street Associates, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 144 A.D.3d 452
Docket Number: 
Parties: 17 East 96th Street Owners Corp., Appellant, v Madison 96th Street Associates, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
Judges: Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
17 East 96th Street Owners Corp., Appellant, v Madison 96th Street Associates, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
[39 NYS3d 794]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered June 8, 2015, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to serve and file a third amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint on the eve of trial (see Reuling v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 138 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2016]). There is no evidence in the record to suggest that defendant's conduct rose to the level of warranting the imposition of punitive damages (see Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 405 [1961]). Furthermore, insofar as plaintiff seeks to add a claim for disgorgement of profits, the court correctly determined that profits realized by defendant are not the proper gauge of damages in a trespass action, and that the proper measure is the lesser of the decline in market value and the cost of restoration (see Jenkins v Etlinger, 55 NY2d 35, 39 [1982]).
Concur—Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.