Ryan v Cunningham

Holding The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint because the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit, as the Building Code does not create a private right of action. The court also upheld the denial of default judgment due to procedural deficiencies and the order prohibiting plaintiff from filing further motions without permission due to abuse of the judicial process.

The court’s words

Although leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025 [b]), it may be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit

2026 NY Slip Op 04645, at the official text

the Building Code itself does not create a private right of action

2026 NY Slip Op 04645, at the official text

plaintiff has clearly abused the judicial process by filing over 20 motions before discovery had even begun

2026 NY Slip Op 04645, at the official text

a party may forfeit that right if [they] abuse[ ] the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will

2026 NY Slip Op 04645, at the official text