I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219

The following papers were considered on Plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR § 3025 [b] [*2]and CPLR §1024 seeking leave to amend the Summons and Complaint respectively to substitute Louis J Home Remodeling Inc. for ABC COMPANY ONE THROUGH THREE Defendants, with said name being pled as fictitious and intended to designate one or more owners, contractors, managers, or developers working at 840 CASTLETON AVENUE STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK 10310 on or about October 4, 2021; and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper and equitable:

1. Notice of Motion dated September 15, 2025, Affirmation of Adina S. Grodsky, Esq., with supporting exhibits A through C. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 34-39).

2. Affirmation of Plaintiff, Chad Wince. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 40).

3. Affirmation in partial Opposition of Christopher L. Cornish, Esq., submitted on September 23, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 42-43).

On October 9, 2025, Plaintiff waived reply. Further, on October 9, 2025, parties waived oral argument and requested that Motion Sequence No. 003 be accepted by the Court on submission.

Defendants Nina and Matthew Long, hereinafter referred to as Long Defendants, owned, managed, operated, and maintained 840 Castleton Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10310, hereinafter referred to as Subject Property, where Plaintiff maintained a lease. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 40 at ¶3). The lease provided that the Subject Property would be cared for, maintained and otherwise operated to give Plaintiff free and quiet enjoyment of said premises. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35 at ¶4).

During renovations of the subject property, on or about October 4, 2021, Plaintiff contends that the stored propane tanks on the roof exploded, and a fire occurred allegedly as a result of use of flames and/or torch by contractors doing the renovations. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 35 at ¶5). Plaintiff thereafter filed a lawsuit in Richmond County, via Summons and Complaint on or about September 27, 2024, seeking damages for property lost. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 37).

Upon the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff incorrectly believed that the contractor who performed the work at the Property was Defendant J&S Home Improvement, although uncertain as to the proper legal name of the entity. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 40 at ¶4 through ¶6). As a result, pursuant to CPLR § 1024, Plaintiff pled all causes of action against ABC Company One Through Three, identifying those companies as with said name being pled as fictitious and intended to designate one or more owners, contractors, managers, or developers working at 840 Castleton Avenue Staten Island, New York 10310 on or about October 4, 2021.

Subsequently, Plaintiff was able to ascertain the proper entity information for the ABC Defendant, which was confirmed by co-defendant as Louis J Home Remodeling Inc. On July 25, 2025, Plaintiff caused the Summons and Complaint to be duly served upon Louis J Home Remodeling Inc. in accordance with CPLR requirements. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 39).

The Long Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff's application as to that amendment; however, they take exception to the assertion in paragraph six [6] of the Affirmation in support which asserts allegations of negligence on the part of these defendants. (NY St Cts Filing [*3][NYSCEF] Doc No. 42 at ¶3).

The plaintiff seeks to amend the caption to name the party originally set forth as a fictitiously named entity. "Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR § 3025 [b]), provided the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit" (see LaSalle Bank N.A. v Abedin, 236 AD3d 773 [2d Dept 2025] quoting Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Holmes, 131 AD3d 680 [2d Dept 2015]).

"The party opposing the application has the burden of establishing prejudice, which requires a showing that the party has been hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position" (see Great Neck Lib. v Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects, P.C., 236 AD3d 873 [2d Dept 2025] quoting JDI Display Am., Inc. v Jaco Electronics, Inc., 188 AD3d 844 [2d Dept 2020]; citing Kimso Apts., LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403 [2014]).

A "party opposing leave to amend 'must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]'" (see Cortes v Jing Jeng Hang, 143 AD3d 854 [2d Dept 2016] quoting McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2012], quoting Otis Elevator Co. v 1166 Ave. of Americas Condominium, 564 NYS.2d 119 [1st Dept 1990]).

"While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is considered an improvident exercise of discretion to deny such leave absent an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice, and the merits of a proposed amendment will not be examined on the motion to amend unless the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt" (see Noanjo Clothing v L & M Kids Fashion, 207 AD2d 436 [2d Dept 1994] citing Courageous Syndicate, Inc. v People-To-People Sports Committee, Inc., 141 AD2d 599 [2d Dept 1988]).

CPLR § 3025 [b] specifically provides:

A party may amend his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties. Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just including the granting of costs and continuances. Any motion to amend or supplement pleadings shall be accompanied by the proposed amended or supplemental pleading clearly showing the changes or additions to be made to the pleading.

Plaintiff has established entitlement for leave to amend as a matter of law, as the amendment merely seeks to include the proper name of the company previously identified as ABC Company, and service has already been effectuated.

Further, CPLR § 1024 provides:

A party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.

Long Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiff's application as to that amendment. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 42). However, Long Defendants did take exception to certain [*4]assertions made by Plaintiff in paragraph six [6] of the Affirmation in support of the motion. (see id). The amendments do not lack merit, and further neither prejudice nor surprise the Defendants. Louis J Home Remodeling Inc., has been served as of July 25, 2025, with service made upon an individual authorized via the Secretary of State, and an affidavit of service filed to NYSCEF. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 32).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 003 is GRANTED in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Plaintiff shall serve the Defendants with the amended complaint within 20 days; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the matter is adjourned for an in-person compliance conference on next adjourn date, December 9, 2025, at 9:30 AM at the Courthouse located at 26 Central Avenue, Courtroom 330, Staten Island, NY; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.