Court Opinion

ID: 9964071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:09:55.873533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.335654
License: Public Domain

Castillo v 1248 Assoc. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31408(U)
                      April 22, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 522504/2018
                  Judge: Devin P. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2024 04:29 PM                                                                          INDEX NO. 522504/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

            Supreme Court of the State of New York                            Index Number                               522504/2018
            County of Kings                                                   Seqs.004

                            Part LLl                                                   DECISION/ORDER
                                                                            Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the
            YESTER CASTILLO,                                                papers considered in the review of this Motion

                                                         Plaintiff,                             Papers Numbered
                                                                            Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed .... _
                                                                            Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed. _I_
                            against                                         Answering Affidavits .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _2_
                                                                            Replying Affidavits ...................... _
                                                                            Exhibits . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Ylll:...
            1248 ASSOCIATES LLC,                                            Other ................................. .
                                                    Defendants.

                  Upon the foregoing papers, defendant's order to show cause seeking to amend its

           pleadings (Seq. 004) is decided as follows:

                   Plaintiff filed his note of issue on December 17, 2021. After multiple scheduled

           appearances in the Jury Coordinating Part, this action was scheduled to begin jury selection on

           April 11, 2024. On April 12, 2024, the parties commenced jury selection, and were assigned to

           this part for trial. On April 16, 2024, this part received a proposed order to show cause from the

           defendant; the OSC was signed and made returnable April 22, 2024.

                   Defendant requests leave to amend its pleadings, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), to assert

           two additional affirmative defenses. The proposed tenth affirmative defense reads:

                   The plaintiff's accident and his subsequent medical treatment are and were fraudulent and
                   said occurrence and treatment were a product of a fraudulent scheme and fraudulent
                   medical treatment in an effort to seek recovery in excess of the real value of any claim
                   (proposed amended answer at ,r 24).

           The purported eleventh affirmative defense is actually a counter-claim for sanctions based on

           frivolous litigation.

                   Defendant's argument is predicated on a civil action filed in Federal court by certain

           insurance companies pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
                                                              1

                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2024 04:29 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 522504/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

           Act. The complaint in that action names as defendants several of plaintiffs submitted experts

           and plaintiffs current counsel, who are not parties in this action. No parties have interposed

           answers or pre-answer motions to dismiss in the civil RICO action and no discovery has

           occurred. This motion does not contain a request to disqualify plaintiff's counsel on the basis of

           civil RICO action.

                  The instant action has been certified for trial for almost two and a half years. "Where ...

           an action has long been certified as ready for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such

           amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent, and cautious" (Boyd v Trent, 297 AD2d

           301,303 [2d Dept 2002]); this is true even more so when such a motion is made on the eve of

           (or, as here, in the midst of) jury selection (see American Cleaners, Inc. v American Intern.

           Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 68 AD3d 792 [2d Dept 2009]; see also F.G.L. Knitting Mills, Inc. v

           1087 Flushing Prop., Inc., 191 AD2d 533,534 [2d Dept 1993]). "In exercising its discretion, the

           court should consider how long the amending party was aware of the facts upon which the

           motion was predicated, whether the amendment is meritorious, and whether a reasonable excuse

           for the delay was offered" (Romeo v Arr/go, 254 AD2d 270,270 [2d Dept 1998]).

                  Here, defendant freely admits in its own moving papers that there exists a long history

           among the civil defense bar of accusing these physicians of "the same conduct underlying the

           recent RICO action" (see e.g. aff. in supp. at ,r 21 fn. 4). The fact that these accusations were

           more recently memorialized in a RICO complaint does not excuse defendant's delay in asserting

           its affirmative defenses once the plaintiff served his expert disclosures, or in a timely way

           thereafter. The civil RICO complaint does not constitute new facts or evidence sufficient to

           warrant defendant's request to amend its pleadings, as that complaint is merely vehicle for

           allegations.

                                                             2

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2024 04:29 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 522504/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

                   Moreover, defendant's barebones assertion that plaintiff will not suffer prejudice is

            incorrect. This motion was brought in the midst of jury selection and on the eve of trial;

            delaying the trial of plaintiff's case in order to re-open discovery or to await the outcome of a

            nascent Federal civil RICO trial would certainly prejudice the plaintiff. Defendant has not

            demonstrated that the plaintiff's prejudice would be outweighed by the interests of the justice if

            the court granted defendant its requested relief.

                   Finally, defendant has not shown that its proposed affirmative defenses are meritorious.

            In its proposed tenth affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the plaintiff was involved in the

            purported fraud insofar as it claims that "the plaintiff's accident ... was fraudulent." There is,

            however, no evidence provided that the plaintiff himself perpetrated any fraud. The gravamen of

            defendant's argument, which hinges almost entirely on the civil RICO complaint, does not

            impute any wrongdoing to this plaintiff. The remainder of defendant's affirmative defense is

            that non-parties to this action perpetrated fraud, which is not a proper affirmative defense (see

            CPLR 3018; see also Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393 [2002]). The proposed eleventh

            affirmative defe1ise is in reality a counter-claim that is improperly plead and is therefore

            impermissible (see CPLR 3019).

                   Ultimately, if defendant believed that these physicians or medical providers committed

            fraud and administered unnecessary medical treatment, the CPLR provides mechanisms for

            naming these individuals in this action and seeking compensation from them for any damages

            that defendant suffers. Defendant did not exercise any of these mechanisms, arid defendant's

            arguments in the final stages oflitigation to add affirmative defenses on the eve of trial are

            unavailing. For that reason, defendant's request to strike the note of issue is also denied.

                                                                3

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/22/2024 04:29 PM                                                         INDEX NO. 522504/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 146                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2024

           Conclusion

                   Defendant' s order to show cause to amend its pleadings, strike the note of issue, and stay the

           trial (Seq. 004) is denied in all respects. Parties are directed to complete jury selection forthwith , ant

           trial of this action shall commence on May 2, 2024, at 9:30am. Both sets of requests for sanctions as

           such are denied. Plaintiff's request for costs is deferred.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

             April 22, 2024
           DATE

                                                                4

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]