Court Opinion

ID: 9954321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:20.897203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:04.634287
License: Public Domain

Black v Ganieva
               2024 NY Slip Op 30947(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 654108/2022
                 Judge: David B. 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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 654108/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                              PART                             58
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          654108/2022
             LEON D. BLACK,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         09/19/2023
                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.    004 005 006
                                                 - V -

             GUZEL GANIEVA, WIGDOR LLP                                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                          Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
            50,51,52,53,54,69, 71, 72, 73, 79
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISSAL

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,
            60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISSAL

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 84, 85, 86, 87, 88,
            90, 91, 92, 93
            were read on this motion to/for                                                AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

                      In this action arising from defendant Ganieva' s now-dismissed lawsuit against plaintiff,

            which was filed and litigated by defendant Wigdor LLP on Ganieva's behalf, defendants move,

            pre-answer, to dismiss the complaint against them (seq. 002 and 003). Plaintiff opposes, and

            moves for leave to amend his complaint for the second time (seq. 006). Defendants oppose the

            amendment.

                                                     I.         PERTINENT BACKGROUND

                      Before this action was filed, Ganieva had asserted various claims against plaintiff,

            including defamation, all arising from their consensual romantic relationship (Index No.

            155262/21) (Ganieva action). In defense to that action, plaintiff had moved to dismiss,
             654108/2022 BLACK, LEON D. vs. GANIEVA, GUZEL ET AL                                                      Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 004 005 006

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 654108/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            contending that Ganieva had signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) related to their

            relationship, which barred her from pursuing any claims against him. In May 2023, this Court

            found that plaintiff was entitled to dismissal as the NDA was binding and enforceable, and that

            Ganieva had waited too long to try to repudiate it. The salient facts are set forth in the dismissal

            order.

                     In this action, plaintiff sued Ganieva for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and

            Wigdor for tortious interference with contract (NYSCEF 2). Defendants then moved, pre-

            answer, to dismiss the complaint.

                     While the motions were pending, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the parties

            agreed to the withdrawal of the motions to dismiss and to respond to the amended complaint

            (NYSCEF 38, 29). In April 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

                     While the new motions to dismiss were pending, plaintiff's motion to dismiss in the

            Ganieva action was granted, and the action was dismissed in May 2023.

                     In August 2023, plaintiff moved to amend his first amended complaint.

                                               II.     MOTION TO AMEND

                     As the motion to amend may affect the outcome of the pending motions to dismiss, it is

            decided first.

                     Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b ), a party may move for leave to amend its complaint, and leave

            must be "freely given upon such terms as may be just," and if "there is no surprise or prejudice

            resulting from the delay to the opposing party" (Ferrer v Go New York Tours Inc., 221 AD3d

            499 [1st Dept 2023]). The sufficiency or merits of the proposed amendment may not be

            considered unless "the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt" (id. at 500).

             654108/2022 BLACK, LEON D. vs. GANIEVA, GUZEL ET AL                                   Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 004 005 006

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654108/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            A motion for leave to amend should be denied when the proposed amendment is "palpably

            insufficient or patently devoid of merit" (LHWS LLC v S.L. Green Realty Corp., _       AD3d _ ,

            2024 NY Slip Op 01272 [1st Dept 2024]).

                   Here, plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add two new legal developments that arose after

            he filed the first amended complaint, namely, the dismissal of the Ganieva action, and a decision

            by the Appellate Division, First Department, which reversed this court's decision and granted

            plaintiffs motion to strike certain scandalous material contained in Ganieva's complaint against

            him (NYSCEF 86). He observes that there has been no undue delay in moving for leave to

            amend, that defendants cannot be surprised by the new facts as they were parties in the Ganieva

            action, and that there is no prejudice as discovery has not yet commenced.

                   Defendants argue that leave to amend is unwarranted as plaintiffs claims against them

            are palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, as argued in their motions to dismiss, and

            that the proposed second amended complaint does not cure the legal insufficiency of the first

            amended complaint.

                   As plaintiffs proposed amendment adds new facts that did not exist when he filed his

            first amended complaint but do not change his theories of liability, as discovery has not yet

            commenced, and as defendants have been aware of the new facts since the pertinent decisions

            were issued, plaintiff has established that he is entitled to leave to amend (see Mohammed v New

            York State Prof Fire Fighters Assn., Inc., 209 AD3d 1151 [3d Dept 2022] [leave to amend

            should have been granted as defendant could not allege surprise or prejudice as proposed

            amendment contained facts already known to defendant]).

             654108/2022 BLACK, LEON D. vs. GANIEVA, GUZEL ET AL                                  Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 004 005 006

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 654108/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 96                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                    While defendants submit various arguments attacking the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's

            claims, they do not demonstrate that the claims are either palpably insufficient or patently devoid

            of merit or that the insufficiency is clear and free from doubt.

                    As the pending motions to dismiss are addressed to the first amended complaint, which

            will be superseded once the second amended complaint becomes the operative pleading,

            defendants' motions to dismiss are denied as academic. The new facts add additional weight to

            plaintiff's claims against defendants, and defendants should have an opportunity to address them

            (see e.g., Hamill v Hamill, 218 AD3d 1371 [4th Dept 2023] [dismissing motion to dismiss

            addressed to first complaint as plaintiff's amended complaint became only operative complaint]).

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is granted (seq. 006), and the

            second amended complaint in the proposed form annexed to the moving papers shall be deemed

            served upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry thereof; it is further

                    ORDERED, that defendants shall serve an answer to the second amended complaint

            within 20 days from the date of said service; and it is further

                    ORDERED, that defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended complaint are denied

            as academic.

                    3/19/2024
                      DATE                                                        DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             654108/2022 BLACK, LEON D. vs. GANIEVA, GUZEL ET AL                                      Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 004 005 006

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]