N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3211

Law changed since Laws of 2005, ch. 616, repealed former CPLR 3211(e)'s repleading provision effective January 1, 2006; this note describes that former provision.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when the party provides no evidence supporting a viable cause of action and no proposed amended pleading.

Craig v. American District Telegraph Co. · filed 1977-04-22(e)

The affidavit requesting leave to replead was executed by plaintiff’s attorney who presumably has no knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, the affidavit is devoid of any facts indicating that the plaintiff has a cause of action. In the absence of evidence showing a good cause of action and in the absence of a proposed amended pleading, the request to replead is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead after dismissal to be conditioned on a showing of good ground to support the cause of action.

Piffath v. Esposito · filed 1977-06-06(e)

However, as the complaint does not show facts indicating that plaintiff has a cause of action, leave to replead is conditioned upon his showing, at Special Term, that he has "good ground to support his cause of action” (cf. CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e)'s denial of leave to replead decides whether amendment is allowed, not the merits of new allegations.

Cullen v. New York State Civil Service Commission · filed 1977-06-27(e)

The scope of the 3211(e) disposition is far more narrow than the issue presented to a federal court by a plaintiff seeking leave to amend, or by a motion to dismiss with prejudice. Indeed, it would be accurate to say that in dismissing without leave to replead, the state court resolved an issue that has no counterpart in a federal proceeding on the same cause of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A denial of leave to replead under § 3211(e) does not decide the merits of new allegations.

Cullen v. NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERV. COMN. · filed 1977-07-29(e)

The denial of leave to replead does not represent a determination of the legal or factual merits of the new allegations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows leave to replead only when the court is satisfied that the party has good ground to support the cause of action.

ATI, Inc. v. Ruder & Finn, Inc. · filed 1977-10-06(e)

In conclusion, it is noted that "leave to plead again shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that the opposing party has good ground to support his cause of action” (CPLR 3211, subd [e]). Under these circumstances, Special Term correctly concluded that leave to replead was not warranted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a dismissal for pleading defects to be without prejudice to an application for leave to plead again.

Renel Construction Inc. v. Brooklyn Cooperative Meat Distribution Center Inc. · filed 1977-11-15(e)

However, the dismissal of the fourth, fifth and (insofar as it rests on the fourth and fifth) the sixth causes of action being for pleading defects only, the dismissal of those causes of action is without prejudice to an appropriate application by plaintiff to Special Term for leave to plead again as to these causes of action. (CPLR 3211, subd [e].)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a showing of good ground to support the causes of action before a plaintiff may replead.

Gottfried v. Alsultany · filed 1979-01-15(e)

However, plaintiffs may not replead since they have not shown good ground to support their causes of action (see CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a showing of merit to warrant leave to replead.

Schussel v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 1979-05-08(e)

There is no showing of merit which would warrant granting leave to replead pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows a court granting dismissal to permit the plaintiff to replead.

Continental Time Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co · filed 1979-05-01(e)

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 28, 1978, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, and defendant-appellant National Broadcasting Company’s (NBC) motion to dismiss the complaint granted without prejudice to application by plaintiff-respondent at Special Term for permission to replead (CPLR 3211, subd [e]) if so advised, with costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) limits leave to replead when there is no evidentiary showing supporting the cause of action.

Mastro Jewelry Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · filed 1979-06-28(e)

Nor is there any evidentiary showing made in support of such a cause of action to justify the grant of leave to replead. (See CPLR 3211, subd [e].)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a party opposing dismissal to request leave to replead in its opposing papers if it wants that leave should the motion be granted.

Metro Envelope Corp. v. Westvaco · filed 1979-11-08(e)

Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [e]), plaintiff, as the opposing party desirous of leave to plead again in the event the motion is granted, was required to so state in its opposing papers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, and section 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead to state that request in its opposing papers.

Metro Envelope Corp. v. Westvaco · filed 1979-10-02(a)(7), (e)

As to the dismissal of plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) for failure to state a cause of action, Special Term improvidently granted leave to plaintiff to replead. Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [e]), plaintiff, as the opposing party desirous of leave to plead again in the event the motion is granted, was required to so state in its opposing papers. This omission, coupled with plaintiff’s failure to submit any extrinsic proof of the validity of its claims embraced within the third and fourth causes of action, impels, on this record, the conclusion that leave to replead should not have been granted (see Cushman & Wakefield v David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits the court to deny leave to replead when the plaintiffs have not sought it.

Kaplan v. Vavasseur · filed 1979-11-02(e)

Since such is pleaded in the third-party complaint herein attacked, its insufficiency to impose liability upon the third-party defendant must result in its dismissal; since third-party plaintiffs have not sought leave to replead, none is granted (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits dismissal without prejudice to seeking leave to replead upon a showing of sufficient facts for another cause of action.

C. E. Hooper, Inc. v. Perlberg · filed 1979-11-08(e)

Accordingly, our dismissal is without prejudice to an application to plead a cause of action on an express assumption or any other cause of action available against defendant on a showing at Special Term of sufficient facts to justify granting such leave.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead a dismissed counterclaim that failed to allege special damages with sufficient particularity.

Ginsberg v. Ginsberg · filed 1981-10-26(e)

However, she should be allowed to plead again, as she requested before Special Term (see CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) does not require a party to seek leave to replead when dismissal is based on subdivision (a)(5).

Ferguson v. McCarthy · filed 1981-11-13(e)

Plaintiffs’ original pleadings were dismissed, not on the basis of paragraph 7 of subdivision (a) but for reasons contained in paragraph 5 of subdivision (a). The statute contains no requirement to seek leave in order to replead when the dismissal is grounded upon this latter statutory provision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits dismissal without prejudice to an application for leave to amend the complaint.

Adler v. 720 Park Avenue Corp. · filed 1982-03-09(e)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Williams, J.), entered April 1,1981, reversed, on the law, the cross motion of defendant-appellant Obernauer to dismiss the fourth cause of action in the amended complaint stated against him, granted, and the motion to vacate the notice of pendency of action filed against Obernauer, granted, without prejudice however to an application by plaintiff-respondent to seek leave at Special Term further to amend his complaint (CPLR 3211, subd [e]), with costs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead when a dismissed complaint has grounds supporting a cause of action.

Bomser v. Moyle · filed 1982-10-26(e)

Since we are satisfied that the plaintiff has good ground to support a cause based upon a breach of an oral agreement or upon a related theory, we grant him leave to replead within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead dismissed causes of action based on affidavits and exhibits submitted in opposition to a dismissal motion.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Stone Conveyor, Inc. · filed 1982-12-17(e)

Based on the affidavits and exhibits submitted in opposition to the dismissal motion, we grant the requested leave to replead (CPLR 3211, subd [e]) with respect to all three causes of action (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:64, p 68).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff repleading a cause of action dismissed for insufficiency to establish through evidentiary proof that the claim exists.

Romano v. Key Bank of Central New York · filed 1982-10-29(e)

On repleading a cause of action which has been dismissed for insufficiency, it is incumbent on plaintiff to establish by evidentiary proof that he does in fact have a cause of action against defendants for fraud and/or misrepresentation (CPLR 3211, subd [e]; Metro Envelope Corp. v Westvaco, 72 AD2d 502; Hirsch v Lehman, 65 AD2d 523).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a dismissal without prejudice to an application for leave to serve a second amended complaint.

Rothfield v. Clinger · filed 1983-01-20(e)

Accordingly, our decision is without prejudice to an application at Special Term pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [e]) for leave to serve a second amended complaint.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires evidence suitable for consideration on a summary judgment motion to support a new pleading after dismissal.

Sebro Packaging Corp. v. S.T.S. Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-04-26(e)

Plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3211 (subd [el) that evidence must be set forth that can properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment in support of a new pleading.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead an inadequately stated cause of action when circumstances warrant.

Adika v. County of Rockland · filed 1983-09-06(e)

However, under the circumstances, plaintiffs should have been granted leave to replead said cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [el).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits dismissal for pleading defects without prejudice to an application for leave to replead.

Babylon Associates v. County of Suffolk · filed 1984-04-30(e)

In view of these pleading defects, the county’s third counterclaim must be dismissed, but without prejudice to an appropriate application to Special Term for leave to re-plead this cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a proposed repleading after dismissal to be supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment.

Walter & Rosen, Inc. v. Pollack · filed 1984-05-01(e)

Moreover this court has construed CPLR 3211 (subd [e]), respecting leave to replead should a complaint be dismissed on motion, to require that the proposed new pleading be supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment (see Cushman & Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133, 135). The conclusory allegations offered by plaintiffs’ attorney fail to meet this required standard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to condition leave to replead on a showing of good grounds to support the cause of action.

Maney v. Maloney · filed 1984-05-24(e)

Since the complaint does not set forth facts showing that plaintiff has a cause of action, leave to replead is conditioned upon his showing at Special Term that he has “ ‘good ground to support his cause of action’ ” (supra, citing CPLR 3211, subd [e]; see, also, Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows a party whose claim was dismissed for a pleading defect to seek leave to plead again upon a proper showing.

Antel Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. v. Sirus Leasing Co. · filed 1984-04-12(e)

Such dismissal, therefore, is without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to apply at Special Term upon a proper showing for leave to plead again (Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727; see CPLR 3211, subd [ej; see, also, Rochester Poster Adv. Co. v Town ofPenfield, 51 AD2d 870; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, pars 3211.32, 3211.33).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead after dismissal for failure to state a cause of action upon a showing of merit.

Boothe v. Weiss · filed 1985-01-22(e)

Because it is possible that plaintiff may be able to remedy these deficiencies, he is granted leave to replead “conditioned upon his showing, at Special Term, that he has ‘good ground to support his cause of action’ (cf. CPLR 3211, subd [e])” (Piffath v Esposito, 58 AD2d 577; see, also, Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727, 729).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to deny leave to replead when the plaintiff offers no evidence that it has a valid cause of action.

Tender Loving Care Agency, Inc. v. Hladun · filed 1985-05-06(e)

Finally, we decline to give plaintiff leave to replead under CPLR 3211 (e) because it has offered no evidence that it is possessed of a valid cause of action against defendants Goldman and Tyckyj (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:64, p 68).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows a court to deny leave to replead without prejudice to renewal when the proposed claim lacks supporting proof.

Piduch v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. · filed 1986-11-10(e)

The court should have denied leave to replead the claim for punitive damages and attorney’s fees without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers (CPLR 3211 [e]; Young v Nelson, 23 AD2d 531).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a plaintiff to seek leave to replead a potentially curable claim upon a showing of merit.

Zambito v. Ryan · filed 1986-12-15(e)

Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto granting the plaintiff leave to move in the Supreme Court, Kings County, if he be so advised, for leave to replead his cause of action sounding in legal malpractice upon a showing of merit (CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires leave to replead after dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

Lotito v. Lund · filed 1987-04-27(e)

Thus, Frumento and Angel Plants were required to seek leave to replead (see, CPLR 3211 [e]), and, because they neither applied for nor obtained leave to replead in this case, their subsequent service of a second third-party complaint upon Lund was improper and the second third-party complaint was, therefore, properly dismissed (see, Chartered Bank v American Trust Co., 48 Misc 2d 314, 317, affd 26 AD2d 623, lv denied 18 NY2d 578; Lehman v Arlen Operating Co., 54 Misc 2d 372).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead a claim dismissed for failure to state a cause of action only when the court is satisfied that good grounds exist.

Allen v. Murray House Owners Corp. · filed 1987-05-07(e)

When pleadings are properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court may not allow reassertion of the dismissed cause unless it is satisfied that there are good grounds therefor. (CPLR 3211 [e].) Since defendants gave no indication that there were any, much less good, grounds for their counterclaims and have not submitted any evidentiary material in support thereof (and it should be noted have not requested leave to replead as required by CPLR 3211 [e]), both counterclaims should have been dismissed without leave to replead.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires good ground to support a cause of action before leave to replead is granted.

Vanderwoude v. Post/Rockland Associates · filed 1987-05-26(e)

In any event, the plaintiff’s request to replead the second cause of action, in light of his failure to alleged any matters of environmental concern, should haye been denied, since the plaintiff failed to allege "good ground” to support his cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead to provide evidence showing good ground to support the cause of action.

Wattson v. TMC Holdings Corp. · filed 1987-12-03(e)

The requirements for obtaining leave to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) additionally include an evidentiary demonstration to satisfy the court that the party has "good ground to support his cause of action”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under CPLR 3211(e), a party seeking leave to replead after a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must request it in the opposing papers.

Fleet Factors Corp. v. Werblin · filed 1988-03-21(e)

Moreover, the court was correct in denying the plaintiffs subsequent motion seeking leave to replead. CPLR 3211 (e) provides in pertinent part that "[w]here a motion is made on the ground set forth in paragraph seven of subdivision (a) * * * if the opposing party desires leave to plead again in the event the motion is granted, he shall so state in his opposing papers” (emphasis added). In the instant case, the plaintiff did not request leave to replead in its papers opposing the defendants’ CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion. Nor has the plaintiff set forth any excuse for its failure to request leave to replead.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when the plaintiff identifies no facts that would support the proposed claim.

Aldrich v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance · filed 1988-05-23(e)

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s implicit denial of plaintiff’s request for leave to replead was proper. The plaintiff failed to posit the existence of facts which would support a claim for either punitive damages or attorneys’ fees (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; cf., Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 NY2d 12, 21).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) does not support leave to replead when substantive deficiencies in the complaint leave no basis for it.

Culkin v. Nassau Hospital Ass'n · filed 1988-10-31(e)

Nor is there any basis in the record for granting leave to replead because of the stated substantive deficiencies in the complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead when an inartfully pleaded claim may have merit.

Summers v. County of Monroe · filed 1989-02-03(e)

However, despite the inartful pleadings, Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs’ claim might be meritorious, and it granted leave to replead against the individual defendants. We find no abuse of discretion (CPLR 3211 [e]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff seeking leave to replead to set forth and support that request in opposition to a motion to dismiss.

Abelman v. Shoratlantic Development Co. · filed 1989-09-11(e)

However, the plaintiffs did not, in opposition to the motions to dismiss, comply with the statutory mandate that they set forth and support a request for such relief (CPLR 3211 [e]; see, Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; Fleet Factors Corp. v Werblin, 138 AD2d 565, 567).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires leave to replead before a plaintiff serves a new complaint after dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

Lo Savio v. Sumber · filed 1989-12-26(e)

Thus, the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to comply with CPLR 3211 (e) were properly granted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to grant leave to replead when the plaintiff has good ground to support the cause of action.

Romas v. Welch · filed 1990-03-22(e)

We find this disposition proper, because if plaintiff "has good ground to support his cause of action” (CPLR 3211 [e]) Supreme Court may in its discretion grant leave to replead (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; see also, Summers v County of Monroe, 147 AD2d 949, 950, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 735).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A request for leave to amend a complaint under CPLR 3211(e) may be denied as unjustified when first made on appeal.

Lewis v. Stiles · filed 1990-02-20(e)

We deny as unjustified the plaintiffs’ request, made for the first time on appeal, for leave to serve an amended complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) does not support granting leave to replead when the plaintiff neither requests leave nor discloses evidentiary facts justifying it.

Dunn v. Dunn · filed 1990-06-04(e)

The nature of that opposition is not set forth in the record and there is no indication that the plaintiff requested leave to replead or that she disclosed evidentiary facts which would justify the granting such a request (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; cf., Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727). Under the circumstances, it was error for the Supreme Court to afford the plaintiff leave to replead the first cause of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) does not require leave to serve an amended complaint when the request is first made on appeal after dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.

Mondello v. Mondello · filed 1990-05-21(e)

Finally, in light of the foregoing there is no merit to the plaintiffs argument, advanced for the first time on appeal, that he should be granted leave to serve an amended complaint (CPLR 3211 [e]; see, Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires proposed new pleadings to be supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment.

Hickey v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs · filed 1991-01-31(e)

Plaintiffs application for leave to amend, contained in a single sentence without even the most conclusory indication of what the new pleadings would be, was properly denied. This court has construed CPLR 3211 (e) to require that the proposed new pleadings be supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment (Walter & Rosen v Pollack, 101 AD2d 734, 735).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows leave to replead only when the court is satisfied that the party has good ground to support the cause of action.

McLeod v. Stancari · filed 1991-03-15(e)

Petitioner’s CPLR 3211 (e) motion to replead is denied. From its review of all submitted papers the court is not satisfied that petitioner "has good ground to support his cause of action” (CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires proposed new pleadings to be supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment when seeking leave to replead.

Pritchard Services (NY) Inc. v. First Winthrop Properties, Inc. · filed 1991-04-25(e)

This court has construed CPLR 3211 (e) to require that proposed new pleadings be supported by "evidence as on a motion for summary judgment” (Walter & Rosen v Pollack, 101 AD2d 734, 735).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead after dismissal for failure to state a claim to show good ground supporting the claim.

Grinstein v. Official Laura Branigan Fan Club · filed 1991-06-27(e)

...complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) since plaintiff failed to demonstrate "good ground” to support his causes of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211 (e) permits leave to replead without a prior request when good grounds support the proposed cause of action.

Annicaro v. Structurtone · filed 1991-07-25(e)

While it is true that plaintiff did not request leave to replead in his papers in opposition to defendants’ original motions to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [e]), courts have, however, granted leave to replead in the absence of request to do so when it appears that there are good grounds to support the repleaded cause of action (see, e.g., Virelli v Goodson-Todman Enters., 142 AD2d 479, 487; Maney v Maloney, 101 AD2d 403, 405; Valez v Feinstein, 87 AD2d 309, 318-319, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 57 NY2d 605; Piffath v Esposito, 58 AD2d 577).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Leave to replead under CPLR 3211(e) requires good ground to support the proposed cause of action.

Mehlman v. Gold · filed 1992-05-21(e)

Plaintiff was given leave to move to replead a cause of action under Judiciary Law § 487 pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e). Leave to replead should not be granted unless a party has good ground to support the cause of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) gives a plaintiff an opportunity to seek leave to plead again; granting dismissal on a ground first raised in reply can improperly deprive the plaintiff of that opportunity.

Goldstein v. Haberman · filed 1992-05-18(e)

Inasmuch as the motion to dismiss was not predicated upon a claimed failure to state a cause of action, the plaintiffs were never afforded an opportunity to seek leave to plead again under CPLR 3211 (e), and that deprivation worked substantial prejudice to them (McLearn v Cowen & Co., 60 NY2d 686, 689; see also, Mitchell v Mendez, 107 AD2d 737). Accordingly, it was error to grant the motion to dismiss on the alternative ground.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead to submit evidence justifying that relief.

Bryant v. City of New York · filed 1992-12-07(e)

Furthermore, the court properly denied the plaintiffs leave to replead these causes of action based upon their failure to submit any evidence justifying the granting of such relief (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; ATI, Inc. v Ruder & Finn, 42 NY2d 454, 461; Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 11, 17, affd 63 NY2d 412).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff seeking leave to replead to demonstrate good cause to support the cause of action.

Carey v. Cunningham · filed 1993-03-18(e)

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause to support their cause of action in seeking leave to replead (CPLR 3211 [e]), and leave to renew was properly denied since the facts were known to them when the original motion was made.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead after dismissal when the plaintiff discloses evidence showing a viable cause of action.

Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc. · filed 1993-05-10(e)

Although the plaintiff requested permission to replead in the event his complaint was found to be deficient, we decline to grant this relief. The plaintiff failed to disclose evidence demonstrating that he had a cause of action sounding in defamation or any other tort (see, Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433; CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to grant leave to replead when the evidence shows good grounds for a claim.

Shlang v. Bear's Estates Development of Smallwood, N. Y., Inc. · filed 1993-06-10(e)

Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the decision to grant plaintiffs’ request for leave to replead (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court dismissing a petition for a defective verification to treat a request to amend as a request for leave to replead.

Ft. Holding Corp. v. Otero · filed 1993-11-22(e)

Thus, based on the foregoing defect in the verification, the petition must be dismissed, but the court will treat petitioner’s request as one for leave to replead, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Failure to seek leave to replead a dismissed counterclaim under CPLR 3211(e) does not bar a later action.

Rapp v. Lauer · filed 1994-01-31(e)

The present action is also not barred by the plaintiffs’ failure to seek leave to replead their counterclaim in the prior action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) (see, Amsterdam Sav. Bank v Marine Midland Bank, 140 AD2d 781, 782; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3211.33).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when the plaintiff does not provide proposed new pleadings supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment.

Abbott v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P. C. · filed 1994-03-29(e)

Leave to replead was properly denied, plaintiffs not having provided proposed new pleadings supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3211 [e]; see, Hickey v National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 169 AD2d 685).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when leave was not requested and no evidence justifies granting it.

Wartux Associates v. Kings College · filed 1994-06-28(e)

The claim is dismissed. Leave to replead has not been requested and no evidence has been submitted to justify granting such leave. (CPLR 3211 [e].)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff to seek leave to replead when the defendant moves to dismiss the original complaint.

Bello v. Cablevision System Corp. · filed 1995-08-14(e)

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant complaint because the plaintiffs failed to seek leave to replead at the time the defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Licensing Dev. Group v Freedman, 184 AD2d 682; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433; Fleet Factors v Werblin, 138 AD2d 565, 567; Lotito v Lund, 129 AD2d 776; Marcucilli v Alicon Corp., 48 AD2d 703).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) allows leave to replead when the plaintiff provides a basis for that relief.

Gall v. Summit, Rovins & Feldesman · filed 1995-12-07(e)

Nor did plaintiffs provide any basis for granting leave to replead this cause of action (CPLR 3211 [e]), or request such relief before the IAS Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead to correct unartfully drafted causes of action.

Sidney Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Eichner Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1996-03-28(e)

A claim for recovery of commissions based on an oral agreement was stated; leave to replead was properly granted to rectify the unartful drafting of the causes of action (CPLR 3211 [e]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:64).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits dismissal without prejudice to an application for leave to amend the complaint.

A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc. · filed 1996-02-13(e)

That dismissal, however, should be without prejudice to plaintiff to apply at Supreme Court, if so advised, for leave to amend (CPLR 3211 [e]; see , Sanders v Schiffer , 39 N.Y.2d 727, 729).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) allows a court to deny leave to replead when a plaintiff has served three defective complaints and did not seek leave while opposing the latest motion to dismiss.

Jacobs v. Haber · filed 1996-10-07(e)

Under these circumstances, and since the plaintiff has already served three defective complaints in this matter and did not seek leave to replead in opposing the defendants’ latest motion to dismiss (see, CPLR 3211 [e]), we reject his present request for permission to draft yet another complaint in this action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of a request to replead when the plaintiff fails to disclose evidentiary facts justifying that relief.

Corporate National Realty, Inc. v. Philson Ltd. · filed 1996-10-21(e)

Although the plaintiff requested permission to replead in the event its complaint was found by this Court to be deficient, we decline to grant that relief, as the plaintiff failed to disclose any evidentiary facts which would justify such relief (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Bardere v Zafir, 63 NY2d 850; Ott v Automatic Connector, 193 AD2d 657, 658; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to deny permission to replead an affirmative defense when the party offers no evidence that the defense is meritorious.

Brown v. State Farm Insurance · filed 1997-03-24(e)

Moreover, State Farm was properly denied permission to replead its first and third affirmative defenses. Even though two years had elapsed since the fires, ... it failed to offer any evidence to establish that these defenses were meritorious (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Jaro Constr. Corp. v Weiner, 209 AD2d 585).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when the record shows no viable cause of action.

Wilson v. Hochberg · filed 1997-12-16(e)

Since the record indicates plaintiffs have no viable cause of action against defendants, leave to replead was properly denied (CPLR 3211 [e]; Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a pleading has been dismissed, CPLR 3211(e) requires sufficient grounds to support a proposed amended pleading before leave to amend is granted.

Parlante v. Cross County Federal Savings Bank · filed 1998-06-15(e)

Although leave to amend is freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), when leave is sought to amend pleadings which were properly dismissed, the court must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to support the proposed amended pleadings (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Hornstein v Wolf, 67 NY2d 721, 723; Ott v Automatic Connector, 193 AD2d 657; Dunn v Dunn, 162 AD2d 433).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) permits leave to replead when an affidavit from a person with knowledge supports a proposed amended complaint that cures the original pleading’s deficiencies.

Elliman v. Elliman · filed 1999-03-16(e)

Leave to replead was properly granted upon an affidavit by a person with knowledge of facts supporting a proposed amended complaint that cured the pleading deficiencies of the original complaint (CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires good grounds for a claim before leave to replead may be granted, supported by affidavits from people with direct knowledge of the facts.

527 Smith Street Brooklyn Corp. v. Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corp. · filed 1999-06-01(e)

CPLR 3211 (e) provides in pertinent part that “leave to plead again shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that the opposing party has good ground to support his cause of action”. The evidence should be in the form of affidavits of those with direct knowledge of the facts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) requires an opportunity to respond or seek leave to replead before a motion to dismiss on limitations grounds is granted for failure to state a cause of action.

Varo, Inc. v. Alvis PLC · filed 1999-05-20(e)

Since plaintiffs only submitted opposition to a motion to dismiss on Statute of Limitations grounds, they should have been afforded an opportunity to respond to defendants’ claim that the complaint did not state a cause of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) gives the court discretion to allow a plaintiff to plead again after dismissal, even if the plaintiff did not request leave in its opposition papers.

Martell Realty v. Vanderveer-Oakdale Associates · filed 1999-10-12(e)

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when, in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), it permitted the plaintiff to plead again (see, CPLR 3211 [e]). The court possessed the discretion to award this relief to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s failure to request it in its opposition papers (see, Sanders v Schiffer, 39 NY2d 727; Annicaro v Structurtone, 175 AD2d 546; Zambito v Ryan, 125 AD2d 462; Boothe v Weiss, 107 AD2d 730; Maney v Maloney, 101 AD2d 403).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A proposed amended counterclaim with a new allegation may be treated as a request for leave to replead under CPLR 3211(e); leave may be denied if the proposed counterclaim lacks sufficient grounds.

Ballard v. Mouzon · filed 1999-11-29(e)

The proposed amended counterclaim, in light of the new allegation therein, was properly considered a cross motion for leave to replead pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), (a) (6). Because the defendant failed to demonstrate a sufficient ground to support the proposed amended counterclaim, the cross motion to amend the counterclaim was properly denied (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Grinstein v Official Laura Branigan Fan Club, 174 AD2d 545).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) requires a motion for leave to replead to be made in connection with a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Cuglietto v. Ferone · filed 2000-02-28(e)

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to replead pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e). The plaintiffs’ motion was not made in connection with a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint, as the complaint had already been dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to refuse leave to replead when there is no reason to suppose the dismissed claims can be supported with good grounds.

Sermidi v. Battistotti · filed 2000-06-08(e)

Leave to replead was properly refused since all of the dismissed causes of action arise out of the objectionable broadcast, and thus there is no reason to suppose that any of them can be supported with good grounds (CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff seeking leave to replead to show that it can properly plead a cognizable cause of action.

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc. · filed 2000-06-12(e)

New York does not recognize an independent tort to recover damages for conspiracy (see, New Dimensions Spa v Fitness Place Rockville Centre, N. Y., 187 AD2d 493, 494) and the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it could properly plead any other cognizable cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) permits denial of a motion to replead when the plaintiff fails to submit a proposed amended pleading supported by evidence of its merit.

HT Capital Advisors, L. L. C. v. Optical Resources Group, Inc. · filed 2000-10-26(e)

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to replead since plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amended pleading supported by evidence of its merit (see, CPLR 3211[e]; King v Schonberg & Co., 233 AD2d 242).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to deny leave to replead when the plaintiff offers no basis to conclude that a valid cause of action exists.

Schoettle v. Taylor · filed 2001-04-26(e)

In light of the fact that plaintiffs did not advance any basis to conclude that they had a valid cause of action, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the request to replead (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a plaintiff seeking leave to replead to show that the complaint’s deficiencies can be cured.

Thea v. Thea · filed 2001-06-26(e)

Finally, plaintiffs are not entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery based only on the hope that they might thereby obtain some evidence to substantiate their conclusory allegations of undue influence (see, HT Capital Advisors v Optical Resources Group, 276 AD2d 420), and they have not made any showing that they could cure the deficiencies of their complaint by repleading (see, CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when the record shows no viable cause of action.

Laznovsky v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc. · filed 2002-01-25(e)

To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to replead, that application must be denied as there is nothing in the record to indicate that plaintiff has a viable cause of action against defendant Smithtown (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; 125 Assoc. v Cralin Trading Assoc., 196 AD2d 630, 631).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead to show good grounds for the claim with affidavits from people with direct knowledge of the facts; an attorney’s affirmation is insufficient.

Lesesne v. Lesesne · filed 2002-03-18(e)

The evidence should be in the form of affidavits of those with direct knowledge of the facts. Insofar as the plaintiffs application for leave to replead was submitted in the context of an attorney’s affirmation, the requisite proof is lacking”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A plaintiff who requests leave to replead under CPLR 3211(e) need not submit additional evidence in support of the request.

Cerra v. Scher Fabrics, Inc. · filed 2002-10-24(e)

Plaintiff, in accordance with the procedural requirements of CPLR 3211 (e), requested leave to replead in the event that defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and although plaintiff did not submit additional evidence in support of her request to replead, such evidence was not essential to the relief sought (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to grant leave to replead a deficient claim when the plaintiff may have a meritorious claim.

Soule v. Norton · filed 2002-11-15(e)

We therefore modify the order in the exercise of our discretion by granting that part of plaintiffs’ request for leave to replead the fourth cause of action insofar as it alleges claims for strict products liability against Visx upon condition that plaintiffs shall serve a second amended complaint within 30 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) does not permit leave to replead when the plaintiff fails to show that the claim has demonstrable merit.

Sutton Associates v. LexisNexis · filed 2003-04-29(e)

Sutton’s submissions fail to establish its entitlement to an order permitting it to replead its claims as requested in plaintiffs brief (at 2 n 2; CPLR 3211 [e]; see, e.g., Lesesne v Lesesne, 292 AD2d 507, 509 [2d Dept 2002]; Cuglietto v Ferone, 269 AD2d 556 [2d Dept 2000]; Shafran v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 234 AD2d 444, 446 [2d Dept 1996]). In the absence of demonstrable merit to plaintiffs claim, leave to replead should not be granted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits denial of an application to plead again when the plaintiff fails to demonstrate good ground for the cause of action.

Pyne v. Block & Associates · filed 2003-05-13(e)

Since plaintiff failed to demonstrate good ground for his legal malpractice cause of action, his application, in the alternative, to plead again was properly denied (see CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires good ground to support a cause of action before a plaintiff may obtain leave to replead.

Latture v. Smith · filed 2003-11-10(e)

In addition, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross application for leave to replead pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) as he did not set forth “good ground” to support his cause of action (Mehlman v Gold, 183 AD2d 634, 635 [1992]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits leave to replead a dismissed claim only when the court is satisfied that the party has good ground to support it.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Xerox Corp. · filed 2004-11-10(e)

A request to replead allegations properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 “shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that the opposing party has good ground to support his cause of action” (CPLR 3211 [e]; see also, Ceres v Shearson Lehman Bros., 227 AD2d 222, 223 [1st Dept 1996] [leave to replead is not appropriate where “there is no reason to believe that plaintiffs could correct the deficiencies of the pleading”]). Here, with respect to those causes of action in the complaint which the court has dismissed against some or all of the defendants, National Union has not shown, nor given the court any reason to believe, that an amended pleading would correct the defects in question (see also, Zigabarra v Falk, 143 AD2d 901, 902-903 [2d Dept 1988]). Therefore, the court declines National Union’s request for leave to replead.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

CPLR 3211(e) permits denial of leave to replead when no evidentiary facts are alleged to justify it.

Tal v. Superior Vending, LLC · filed 2005-07-18(e)

The branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for leave to replead was properly denied, since no evidentiary facts were alleged which would justify granting leave to replead (see CPLR 3211 [e]; Parlante v Cross County Fed. Sav. Bank, 251 AD2d 476, 476-477 [1998]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to deny leave to replead when the plaintiff lacks good ground to support the proposed cause of action.

Nadkarni v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System · filed 2005-08-01(e)

Whether reasonable or not, her concerns were solely her belief, and therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) for leave to replead to assert a cause of action based on Labor Law § 740.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) permits a court to allow a party to plead again after dismissing a deficient pleading, subject to a deadline.

Nesathurai v. University at Buffalo · filed 2005-11-10(e)

In the exercise of our discretion, however, we grant that part of the cross motion of defendant seeking, in the alternative, leave to serve an amended answer to include the proposed amended counterclaim submitted with his cross motion upon condition that defendant shall serve an amended answer within 30 days of service of a copy of the order of this Court with notice of entry (see CPLR 3211 [e]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 3211(e) requires a party seeking leave to replead after dismissal to show a good ground for the claim or defense; the court may require supporting evidence.

Srour v. Board of Trustees of the Sephardic Congregation of Har Ha Lebanon, Inc. · filed 2004-06-03(e)

CPLR 3211 (e) requires that "leave to plead again [after a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)] shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that the opposing party has good ground to support his cause of action or defense" and "the court may require the party seeking leave to plead again to submit evidence to justify the granting of such leave."