Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Nussberg v. Tatintsian

Nussberg v. Tatintsian, 90 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2011)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
2011-12-20
Topic
general

Defendants’ proposed counterclaims alleging that plaintiff knowingly sold forged artworks to defendants, resulting in lost profits and other damages, do not plainly lack merit (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 500 [2010]). Further, plaintiff fails to show that the proposed amendments would result in prejudice to him that could have been avoided had defendants raised the counterclaims in their original answer (see Murray v City of New York, 51 AD3d 502, 503 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nussberg v. Tatintsian. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Defendants’ proposed counterclaims alleging that plaintiff knowingly sold forged artworks to defendants, resulting in lost profits and other damages, do not plainly lack merit (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 500 [2010]). Further, plaintiff fails to show that the proposed amendments would result in prejudice to him that could have been avoided had defendants raised the counterclaims in their original answer (see Murray v City of New York, 51 AD3d 502, 503 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.