On May 26, 2022, the First Department issued a decision in Lewis v. Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op. 03448, denying a motion to amend because the proposed amendment did not present new or different facts, explaining:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, as the proposed second amended complaint did not lay before the court any different or additional factual basis, but merely repeated what was in the original complaint. Moreover, our affirmance of Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint as against defendants Littler Mendelsohn, P.C. and Sylvia Jeanine Conley, is the law of the case. Because plaintiff alleged no new facts that had transpired since this litigation was commenced, and the allegations were known, at a minimum, at the time of his first amended complaint, Supreme Court’s denial of the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was not an improvident exercise of its discretion. In any event, we find that the proposed claims asserted in the second amended complaint are palpably insufficient or devoid of merit.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).