On May 14, 2024, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Hello Beautiful Salon, Inc. v. Dimoplon, 2024 NY Slip Op. 31702(U), denying a motion to amend for failure to show the changes made to the prior complaint, explaining:
In 2012 CPLR 3025 (b) was amended arid states that 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. The practice commentaries accompanying the new rule state that this new provision does not prescribe exactly how the changes are to be shown, but any document marked with track changes or some similar program, will likely suffice. Clarity should be the touchstone for any disputes on this front, and there are many ways in which the movant can achieve this legislative goal. Thus, while there are courts that have required such track changes, others have held their absence does not mean the request for an amendment should be denied. However, there can be no dispute that the plain meaning of the statute requires such changes to be apparent so that other parties and the court can easily identify them. Therefore, the lack of such a clear showing leaves the non-moving parties no choice but to conduct a line-by-line comparison between the original and the allegedly amended pleadings. Such expenditure of time and effort shifts the burden from the Plaintiff to the non-movants to locate and object to any proposed changes rather than where it should be on movant to justify its changes. Further, the lack of clearly identified changes places an undue burden on courts. The submission of an amended complaint in reply is improper. The fully proposed amended complaint was required to be submitted in support of its motion in chief. New arguments cannot be made in reply. Therefore, the motion seeking to amend the complaint is denied without prejudice.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).