Key Takeaway
Learn what happens when you admit allegations in an answer that should have been denied, and how New York courts handle motions to amend pleadings.
Anoun v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 05638 (1st Dept. 2011)
Deny, Deny, Deny and do not withdraw those affirmative defenses. Well, only when answering a complaint.
But, despite everything I always thought, you can get around an admission in a complaint through a motion for leave to amend.
“defendant answered and admitted ownership and control over the area where the accident occurred.” WOOPS
“Defendant subsequently moved for, inter alia, summary judgment, arguing that it did not own the subject park. Defendant provided evidence that the property was owned by the State. When defendant realized that it had previously admitted ownership, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and to stay a determination of the summary judgment motion.”
It is well established that leave to amend a pleading is freely given “absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay” (Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935 ; see CPLR 3025). “Prejudice arises when a party incurs a change in position, or is hindered in the preparation of its case, or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position” (Valdes v Marbrose Realty, 289 AD2d 28, 29 ). Here, the 90-day period within which plaintiff could serve the State with a notice of claim terminated on September 29, 2008, more than three months prior to defendant’s admission of ownership. Thus, the admission could not have caused plaintiff any prejudice. For the same reasons, plaintiff’s claims of estoppel are unfounded (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307, 310 ).
Although it may ultimately be found that defendant participates in the park’s operation or retains some control over it, that does not warrant denial of the motion to amend. On such a motion, the court considers “the sufficiency of the merits of the proposed amendment” (Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 ). Here, defendant’s submissions, which included an affidavit of the title examiner and *2 appropriation maps showing that the property was the subject of a taking by the State, were sufficient to support the proposed amendment (see e.g. MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499 ).”
So here you go.
Related Articles
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Plead it or lose
- Understanding New Yorks Former Serve and File System: Legal Challenges That Still Echo Today
- Procedural Delays in No-Fault Insurance Litigation: Understanding the Prejudice Standard
- The motion that went nowhere
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, CPLR 3025 amendment standards may have evolved through subsequent case law interpretations, and courts may have refined their approach to evaluating prejudice and surprise in motions to amend pleadings that contain inadvertent admissions. Practitioners should verify current judicial standards for leave to amend and any updated procedural requirements that may affect strategies for correcting erroneous admissions in answers.
