CPLR 3013 Requires a Pleaded Time Frame; CPLR 3025(b) Leave to Amend Granted to Correct a Typographical Date Absent Concrete Prejudice

1. Introduction

Case: Shaughnessey v Relyea, 2026 NY Slip Op 02013 [248 AD3d 1366] (App Div 3d Dept Apr. 2, 2026).
Parties: Tenant-plaintiffs Jennifer Shaughnessey et al. sued their landlord-defendants Tim Relyea et al.

The plaintiffs alleged that while they were incarcerated for drug-related activity (arrested in April 2018), the defendants entered the plaintiffs’ rental residence in Oneida, New York, and unlawfully removed and sold plaintiffs’ personal property. Plaintiffs sued in May 2020. The defendants answered in September 2020, including a CPLR 3013 defense (insufficient particularity). After four years of dormancy, plaintiffs filed a note of issue in April 2024. Defendants then moved to dismiss for inadequate pleading; plaintiffs cross-moved to amend.

The appeal centered on two procedural questions: (1) whether the original complaint complied with CPLR 3013’s particularity requirement, and (2) whether leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b) should have been granted where the amendment attempted to supply an actionable time frame but contained an apparent typographical error (listing 2024 instead of 2018).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed dismissal of the original complaint because it did not allege any time frame for the alleged trespass/removal of property, rendering it insufficient under CPLR 3013.

However, the Court reversed Supreme Court’s denial of leave to amend. It held that the proposed amended complaint—though sparse and containing an erroneous year—could be liberally read as correcting a typographical mistake and, importantly, it met the minimal function of a pleading: apprising defendants of the claim. The Court further held that defendants did not demonstrate the kind of prejudice that defeats CPLR 3025(b) leave to amend.

Disposition: Order modified; plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend granted; plaintiffs directed to serve the amended complaint within 20 days; otherwise affirmed.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) CPLR 3013: Particularity and Notice of Transactions/Occurrences

The Court grounded its CPLR 3013 analysis in its own and other Departments’ articulation of the “notice of the transactions/occurrences” requirement:

  • Archer-Vail v LHV Precast Inc., 168 AD3d 1257 (3d Dept 2019) and 12 Baker Hill Rd., Inc. v Miranti, 130 AD3d 1425 (3d Dept 2015): These cases supply the controlling formulation: a pleading must be “sufficiently particular” to give notice of the transactions or occurrences and the material elements. The Court used these as the baseline to judge whether the complaint’s allegations were intelligible enough to defend.
  • City of Albany v Normanskill Cr., LLC, 165 AD3d 1437 (3d Dept 2018); Jackie's Enters., Inc. v Belleville, 165 AD3d 1567 (3d Dept 2018); Ciprich v Atwood, 163 AD3d 1332 (3d Dept 2018): These cases were cited to show that, even with a “very generous reading,” plaintiffs’ allegations could resemble recognized tort theories (trespass, trespass to chattels, conversion). But the Court used them primarily as a contrast: even if the legal labels could fit, the absence of an alleged time frame still defeats CPLR 3013 notice pleading.
  • Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5 (2d Dept 1973): The Court cited this to emphasize that missing CPLR 3013 detail may sometimes be cured by “any other accompanying filing.” Here, there was no such filing supplying dates, reinforcing dismissal.
  • Mid-Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v Quartararo & Lois, PLLC, 155 AD3d 1218 (3d Dept 2017), affd 31 NY3d 1090 (2018): This precedent buttressed the conclusion that failure to plead required particulars warrants dismissal. The Third Department invoked the affirmed authority to validate dismissal where a pleading leaves defendants without adequate notice to frame a defense.

2) CPLR 3025(b): Liberal Amendment Policy, Minimal Merits Showing, and Prejudice

The Court’s reversal on amendment closely tracked New York’s “freely given” amendment doctrine:

  • Passeri v Brody, 199 AD3d 1260 (3d Dept 2021) and Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 155 AD3d 1503 (3d Dept 2017): These authorities supply the core rule: the movant need not prove the amendment’s ultimate merits; leave should be granted absent prejudice/surprise, unless “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.” The Third Department used this framework to conclude the amended pleading cleared the “bare minimum” threshold.
  • Petry v Gillon, 199 AD3d 1277 (3d Dept 2021) and Matter of Perkins v Town of Dryden Planning Bd., 172 AD3d 1695 (3d Dept 2019): These cases were cited for the standard of review—abuse of discretion—while also setting up the criticism that Supreme Court did not meaningfully analyze the cross-motion’s merits under the governing amendment standard.
  • Lakeview Outlets Inc. v Town of Malta, 166 AD3d 1445 (3d Dept 2018): This decision provided the operative definition of “prejudice” in the amendment context: a change in position or hindrance in case preparation that could have been avoided had the pleading included the amendment earlier. The Court applied that definition to reject a conclusory “four-year delay” argument where defendants’ own answer indicated knowledge of the core facts and their entry into the premises.
  • Mohammed v New York State Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Inc., 209 AD3d 1151 (3d Dept 2022) and NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People Care Inc., 156 AD3d 99 (3d Dept 2017): These were used to reject the idea that plaintiffs needed evidentiary “proof” (such as a persuasive inventory list) to obtain leave to amend; evidentiary weight is not the test at the pleading-amendment stage.

3) Liberal Construction of Pleadings and Treatment of Obvious Mistakes

  • Cole v Mandell Food Stores, 93 NY2d 34 (1999): The Court relied on the Court of Appeals’ statement of the pleading’s “primary function”: to apprise the adverse party of the claim. This supported accepting an inartful but intelligible amended complaint that corrects the key CPLR 3013 defect.
  • Foley v D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60 (1st Dept 1964): Cited for the general principle that pleadings are viewed liberally—an interpretive stance that allowed the Court to treat “2024” as a typographical error when the incarceration reference aligned the timeline with 2018.
  • Victoria T. Enters., Inc. v Charmer Indus., Inc., 63 AD3d 1698 (4th Dept 2009) (compare New Dimension Solutions, Inc. v Spearhead Sys. Consultants [US], Ltd., 28 AD3d 260 (1st Dept 2006)): The Court used these decisions to justify reading the amended pleading contextually: where surrounding allegations supply coherence, an apparent drafting mistake (like an incorrect year) may not doom the pleading if the claim is still reasonably understood.

4) Note of Issue, Trial Readiness, and Caution with Post-Note Amendments

  • Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 200 AD3d 1243 (3d Dept 2021): Cited in Footnote 2 to acknowledge that filing a note of issue and certifying trial readiness generally counsels caution about permitting amendment—especially where it could disrupt readiness.
  • Hutchins v Wand, 82 AD2d 928 (3d Dept 1981) (compare Lisa I. v Manikas, 188 AD3d 1369 (3d Dept 2020); Rosen v Mosby, 180 AD3d 1253 (3d Dept 2020); Kropp v Town of Shandaken, 91 AD3d 1087 (3d Dept 2012)): Also in Footnote 2, these cases were invoked to signal that, because no discovery had occurred despite the note of issue, striking the note of issue may be warranted. The Court did not decide that issue, but it highlighted the procedural mismatch between “trial-ready” certification and a record devoid of discovery.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Why the Original Complaint Was Dismissed

The Court treated the absence of any alleged time frame as a fatal CPLR 3013 defect. Even if defendants could infer the general story (incarceration; landlord entry; property removal), the Court held that defendants were not adequately notified of the “transactions or occurrences” because the pleading gave no temporal boundary—no “on or about” date, no date range, and no accompanying filing supplying that missing element.

Importantly, the Court suggested the complaint nearly included the right structure (“on or about”) but then omitted the actual dates (a defect that “somehow remains” even in the amended complaint’s phrasing, per Footnote 1). That observation underscores the Court’s view that temporal particularity is not mere form; it is integral to notice, defenses (including limitations), and the ability to investigate.

2) Why Leave to Amend Should Have Been Granted

The Court separated two ideas: (a) the amended complaint contained mistakes and sparse details, and (b) whether it still cleared the low bar for pleading notice and amendment under CPLR 3025(b). The Court concluded it did.

First, it characterized the “2024” date as a typographical error because the same paragraph referred to incarceration, which aligned the narrative with 2018. Read liberally, the amended complaint supplied the missing element that killed the original pleading: an intelligible time period for the alleged wrongful entry and removal of chattels.

Second, the Court found no showing of prejudice as New York defines it in this setting. The defendants’ own answer indicated they knew of the incarceration (through the newspaper), suspected misuse of the property, entered for an “emergency inspection,” and “secur[ed]” plaintiffs’ remaining effects. Those admissions supported the inference that defendants were not hindered in preparing a defense by the amendment’s timing.

Third, the Court rejected the notion that plaintiffs needed to prove the inventory of removed items at the amendment stage. Whether the handwritten list is persuasive is a merits/discovery question, not a CPLR 3025(b) gatekeeping question—unless the pleading is plainly meritless, which the Court did not find here.

C. Impact

1) Practical Pleading Rule: Time Frame as a Core CPLR 3013 Particular

While CPLR 3013 does not enumerate a checklist, Shaughnessey effectively treats a basic time frame as essential where the wrong alleged is tied to a discrete event (entry/removal/sale). Future litigants in the Third Department should expect dismissal risk if a complaint alleges tortious acts but omits when they occurred—especially where limitations, consent, tenancy status, or emergency circumstances may turn on timing.

2) Amendment Policy: Courts Should Distinguish “Inartful” from “Unintelligible”

The decision reinforces that New York’s liberal amendment policy has real bite: even after long dormancy and even after a note of issue, a party may be allowed to amend where the amendment does not add new claims but instead cures a pleading defect—so long as the opponent cannot show concrete prejudice.

3) Case Management Signal: Note of Issue May Be Vulnerable When Discovery Is Absent

Footnote 2 is a pointed reminder that filing a note of issue without discovery creates exposure to a motion to strike. The Court’s guidance suggests that allowing an amendment to correct pleading defects does not immunize a case from later calendar management remedies when trial-readiness certification is inconsistent with the litigation record.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • CPLR 3013 (particularity in pleadings): A complaint must tell the other side enough about what happened—what events, involving whom, and in what general sequence—so they can understand the claim and prepare a defense. Here, “when it happened” was indispensable.
  • Trespass (to land/residence): Unlawful entry onto property possessed by another.
  • Trespass to chattels: Interference with someone else’s personal property (less severe than conversion), such as taking, damaging, or dispossessing it temporarily.
  • Conversion: A serious, wrongful exercise of control over another’s personal property—often functionally treated like “civil theft” (though not identical to criminal theft).
  • CPLR 3025(b) (leave to amend): Courts usually allow amendments unless the delay causes real unfairness (prejudice/surprise) or the amendment is obviously meritless.
  • “Prejudice” in amendment practice: Not mere delay; it is a concrete impairment—lost evidence, changed position, or avoidable hindrance in preparing the case.
  • Note of issue / certificate of readiness: A filing that places the case on the trial calendar and represents discovery is complete and the case is ready for trial; if that representation is false (e.g., no discovery occurred), a court may strike it.

5. Conclusion

Shaughnessey v Relyea draws a sharp procedural line: a complaint that omits any time frame for the alleged wrongful acts may fail CPLR 3013 even if it roughly gestures at recognizable causes of action. At the same time, the decision emphasizes New York’s liberal approach to amendment under CPLR 3025(b): courts should permit amendments that cure such defects—particularly typographical or drafting errors—absent a concrete showing of prejudice, and without demanding evidentiary proof at the pleading stage. The opinion also flags that “trial-ready” filings may be subject to correction (including striking a note of issue) when discovery has not occurred.