The following numbered papers were used on this motion, which was determined on submission pursuant to IAS Part 2 Rules, Part I, Subpart C, §61: Submitted by Plaintiff: NYSCEF Doc No. 71: Notice of Motion NYSCEF Doc No. 72: Affirmation of Mark J. Linder, Esq. in Support NYSCEF Doc No. 73: Exhibit A — Proposed Amended Summons and Amended Complaint NYSCEF Doc No. 82: Affirmation of Charles D. Liebman, Esq. in Opposition NYSCEF Doc No. 83: Affirmation of Charles D. Liebman, Esq. Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 130-1.1-a Submitted by Defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education: NYSCEF Doc No. 84: Affirmation of Service of Charles D. Liebman, Esq. Filed by the Court: NYSCEF Doc No. 85: Interim Order DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing papers and due deliberation having been had, the within motion is determined as follows: Question Presented Should a motion to add a spouse as an additional plaintiff and to amend the summons and complaint to add a cause of action for loss of consortium be granted where, in addition to a copy of the proposed amended summons and complaint, the only other evidence in support is an attorney’s affirmation bereft of personal knowledge? This Court has found no direct appellate authority on point. Background This action concerns a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Brooklyn on December 7, 2021. Plaintiff Ladwin Brissett alleges that he sustained serious and permanent injuries as a result of Defendant Larry Garland’s operation of a vehicle owned by Defendant Safe Coach Bus Inc. Prior hereto, the complaint was dismissed as against Defendants the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education as a result of their successful motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to amend a summons and complaint to add his purported wife as a plaintiff and to add a cause of action in the complaint for loss of consortium; he also seeks to amend the summons and complaint to reflect that the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education are no longer parties. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 72, Linder aff.) Contentions The only papers submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion are an affirmation from his counsel, Mark J. Linder, Esq., and a copy of the proposed amended summons and complaint. In pertinent part, Attorney Linder avers as follows: 4. On December 7, 2021 and prior thereto, COURTNAY BRISSETT was the spouse of Plaintiff LADWIN BRISSETT. 5. On December 7, 2021 and prior thereto, she was entitled to and did receive the companionship, comfort, love, affection, support, assistance, services, and consortium of Plaintiff LADWIN BRISSETT. 6. That by reason of the negligence of the Defendants, COURTNAY BRISSETT has been deprived of and will be deprived in the future of the companionship, comfort, love, affection, support, assistance, services, and consortium of Plaintiff LADWIN BRISSETT. 7. Based on above and in order to protect the rights of the Plaintiffs herein, it is necessary to add the above named party as a Plaintiff to this matter. Exhibit “A” is the proposed amended complaint along amended summons. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff is requesting an Order of the Court allowing COURTNAY BRISSETT be named as a Plaintiff to this action. (Id.
4-8.) The proposed amended complaint alleges as a first cause of action on behalf of Courtnay Brissett: 24. This Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs of this complaint numbered “1″ through “23″ inclusive, with the same force and effect as though the same were more fully set forth at length herein. 25. On December 7, 2021 and prior thereto, COURTNAY BRISSETT was legally married to Plaintiff LADWIN BRISSETT. 26. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff COURTNAY BRISSETT has been deprived of the comfort, society and companionship of her husband, LADWIN BRISSETT, and upon information and belief, will be so deprived in the future. 27. That at all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff COURTNAY BRISSETT has been caused to incur medical expenses on behalf of her husband, LADWIN BRISSETT, and upon information and belief will be so compelled to do in the future. 28. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff COURTNAY BRISSETT has been damaged in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that otherwise have jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc No. 73, complaint
