On November 25, 2024, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Carloha, Inc. v. DC Nice Car, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op. 34176(U), denying a motion to amend to add additional defendants made after the close of discovery as untimely, explaining:
Turning to the motion to add the proposed defendants, it is well settled that it is improper to file a motion to amend after discovery has been substantially completed, where no excuse for the late filing has been presented. The plaintiff asserts this motion has been filed at the earliest possible opportunity after obtaining evidence that supports the inclusion of the proposed additional defendants. However, there is evidence the plaintiff was well aware of the corporate structure of defendant entity long before they filed this motion. As the court observed in Shi Mong Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise Inc.,
437 F.Supp3d 361 [S.D.N.Y. 2020] of equal significance, these proposed new defendants are not before the Court and reopening the Case to add them would certainly risk a re-do of the entire discovery process inasmuch as each new defendant would be entitled to obtain discovery from the plaintiffs and potentially from co-defendants. Thus, the prejudice calculus changes when the motion to amend is made following the conclusion of discovery and the amendment would require the re-opening of discovery.In this case, the request has been made after the conclusion of virtually all discovery. The prejudice to the defendant is readily apparent. Consequently, the motion seeking to amend the pleadings is denied.
(Internal citations omitted).