The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, Bojan Bistrovic, Marsonia Capital Management, LLC and Marsonia Investment Management, LLC’s (the Defendants) motion to amend their answer, counterclaims and third-party complaint (the Pleadings) pursuant to CPLR 3025 is granted. RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES In a decision dated November 12, 2019 (the Appellate Decision; NYSCEF Doc. No. 150), the Appellate Division, First Department, inter alia, modified a prior decision of the court (Ramos, J.), which denied the Defendants’ prior motion for leave to amend dated March 4, 2018 to assert claims for defamation and accounting, to allow the counterclaim for defamation, writing as follows: The alleged defamatory statements in the June 2016 email, upon which defendants rely, are not protected by the common-law privilege that applies to statements made in the context of a judicial proceeding or the statutory privilege set forth in Civil Rights Law §7 4 (see Bridge CA. T Scan Assocs. v. OhioNuclear, Inc., 608 F Supp 1187, 1194-1195 [SD NY 1985] [applying NY law]; Williams v. Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 599 [1969]). Nor is the proposed counterclaim barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 203 [d]). Leave to amend the answer to assert a counterclaim for an accounting, however, was properly denied as defendants have failed to establish that the claim is not palpably insufficient, and, on its face, conclusory. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150 at 3-4). The Defendants promptly filed and served their amended Pleadings on November 21, 2019 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 149). However, by letter dated December 9, 2019, the plaintiffs/third-party defendants (collectively, the Plaintiffs) objected to the Pleadings based on the Defendants’ allegations of alter-ego liability therein (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150 ["we hereby demand that you strike the alter-ego allegations immediately and re-file your Amended Answer and extend our time to respond"]). At a status conference on December 19, 2019, counsel for the parties allegedly agreed that the Defendants would remove the references to alter-ego liability in their amended Pleading, subject to the Defendants being able to pursue discovery of alter-ego issues, and that the Plaintiffs would answer the amended Pleadings. The So-Ordered Stipulation from that status conference provides: DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS/3RD PARTY PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED PLEADING ADDING A COUNTERCLAIM FOR DEFAMATION ON 1/10/20 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 151). The Defendants served their revised amended Pleadings on January 10, 2020, removing all the alter-ego allegations as agreed (NYSCEF Doc. No. 152). The Plaintiffs, however, again refused to answer, raising a number of new objections based on the fact that the Pleadings allegedly included additional changes beyond the new defamation counterclaim (NYSCEF Doc. No. 162). At a status conference on January 30, 2020, the parties entered into a new So-Ordered Stipulation as follows: 1. [PLAINTIFFS'] COUNSEL TO SPEAK WITH CLIENTS RE: AMENDMENTS IN 1/10/20 PLEADING BY 2/3/2020 & ADVISE [DEFENDANT'S] COUNSEL BY 213120 2. IF [PLAINTIFFS] WANT TO PURSUE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENTS [DEFENDANTS] SHALL FILE AN OSC TO AMEND BY 2/17/20…. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 153). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs did not consent to the amended Pleadings and the Defendants now move by Order to Show Cause for leave to amend. DISCUSSION The Defendants’ proposed revised and amended Pleadings here allege a new counterclaim for defamation, clarify certain prior allegations and assert the first and fourth counterclaim (e.g., compare Proposed Amended Pleadings, 1st Counterclaim, 4th Counterclaim, and
