Case Name: Merchants National Bank and Trust Co. of Syracuse, Plaintiff, v. Duplex Truck & Equipment Sales, Inc., et al., Defendants. Richard G. Dower, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. C. Georg Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1970-01-15
Citations: 33 A.D.2d 988
Docket Number: 
Parties: Merchants National Bank and Trust Co. of Syracuse, Plaintiff, v. Duplex Truck & Equipment Sales, Inc., et al., Defendants. Richard G. Dower, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. C. Georg Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 988–988

Head Matter:
Merchants National Bank and Trust Co. of Syracuse, Plaintiff, v. Duplex Truck & Equipment Sales, Inc., et al., Defendants. Richard G. Dower, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. C. Georg Corporation et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Opinion:
Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. The amended third-party complaint shall be served within 20 days after entry of the order herein. Memorandum: Appellant seeks to serve an amended third-party complaint and to add as additional third-party defendants, the executors of the" will of the owner of a majority of the stock of the present third-party defendant corporations. The proposed pleading alleges that the decedent owned or controlled the stock of the primary defendant and the proposed third-party complaint seeks to have the corporate structure pierced and the estate indemnify appellant against any liability. Leave to amend should be freely given (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]) and, since no prejudice is claimed to result from the amendment, we reverse because it cannot be said that the proposed amended complaint is " palpably insufficient." (Cf. Norton v. Norton, 12 A D 2d 1003.) We likewise hold that appellant's motion to add the additional third-party defendants should be granted and, under the circumstances, appellant should have an opportunity to assert his claim and the third-party defendants to make such motions against it as they may deem advisable. (6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, pp. 86-89; Martin v. Katz, 15 A D 2d 767; Grandview Constr. Corp. v. Roreck Constr. Co., 14 A D 2d 909.) In granting this motion we are not passing upon the sufficiency or merits of the proposed pleading. (Amherst Bowling Center v. Dolce, 11 A D 2d 1079.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion to amend complaint and add parties in action on promissory note.) Present— Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Gabrielli, Moule and Bastow, JJ.