On October 13, 2023, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Katzoff v. BSP Agency, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op. 33781(U), holding that a delay in moving to amend is insufficient grounds for denying a motion to amend, explaining:
The court rejects BSP’s argument that leave to amend should be denied on account of alleged prejudice or lack of a reasonable excuse for delay. First, BSP has insufficiently identified prejudice. It is clearly not the case that the parties have completed document discovery. As BSP acknowledged, plaintiff’s motion to compel was pending when BSP briefed this motion and has since resulted in BSP being ordered to produce additional documents. Nor have party depositions taken place and the note of issue has not been filed. In Pecora v Pecora, upon which BSP relies, the First Department denied leave to amend where, also, the note of issue had not been filed, but there the ten year delay from the time plaintiffs knew of the potential claim, and seven years from the commencement of their action, tangibly prejudiced defendants because relevant documents of a non-party had been destroyed pursuant to a seven-year retention policy thereby hindering defendants from establishing defenses to the new claims. Here, BSP identifies no analogous prejudice from plaintiffs’ amendment two years after their commencement of this case. BSP’s reliance on Panasia is also unavailing. There, the court denied leave to amend where the plaintiff sought leave for a third time and the parties had already engaged in summary judgment dispositive motion practice wherein they assembled, laid bare, and revealed their proof, which has not happened in this case.
Nor is the timing of this motion a basis for denial. It is also notable that the preliminary conference was only held on March 7, 2022, only seven months prior to the initiation of the present motion. The cases BSP cites are distinguishable.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).