Arita v. FDS Assoc., LLC - Court Opinion

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York modified an order regarding a motion by third-party defendant The City of New York. The court granted limited discovery while affirming the denial of other requests, impacting the procedural path of the case.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York modified a lower court's order concerning a motion by third-party defendant The City of New York in the case Arita v. FDS Assoc., LLC. The appellate court granted the City's motion to the extent of permitting further limited discovery from the plaintiff, specifically regarding his knowledge of allegations in a related RICO action against his attorneys and medical providers. However, the court affirmed the denial of the City's request to amend its answer to add fraud defenses and denied its request to stay summary judgment motions as moot.

This decision allows for targeted discovery to proceed, potentially impacting the plaintiff's case and the City's defense strategy. While the case remains on the trial calendar, the limited discovery must be conducted carefully. Compliance officers should note that this is a procedural ruling within an ongoing legal dispute and does not impose new regulatory obligations on external entities, but it does affect the litigation process for the parties involved.

What to do next

Review the court's decision regarding limited discovery in Arita v. FDS Assoc., LLC.
Assess potential impact on ongoing litigation involving The City of New York and its legal counsel.
Ensure compliance with any court-ordered discovery procedures related to this case.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Arita v. FDS Assoc., LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01152
Docket Number: Index No. 22999/19; Appeal No. 5975; Case No. 2025-05704
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Arita v FDS Assoc., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01152)
| Arita v FDS Assoc., LLC |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01152 |
| Decided on March 03, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered: March 03, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Shulman, Higgitt, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.
Index No. 22999/19|Appeal No. 5975|Case No. 2025-05704|

*[1]Arturo Arita, Plaintiff-Respondent,

FDS Associates, LLC, Defendant-Respondent.

FDS Associates, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,

The City of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.**

Resnick & Louis, P.C., Tarrytown (Kelly C. Griffin-Fromm of counsel), for appellant.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Jonathan D. Moran of counsel), for Arturo Arita, respondent

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about August 12, 2025, which denied third-party defendant The City of New York's motion for leave to amend its answer, strike the note of issue for the purposes of conducting further discovery, and to stay the then pending summary judgment motions, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion to the extent of permitting further limited discovery in accordance with this order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied the City leave to amend its answer to add the affirmative defenses of fraud and fraud on the court based on a RICO complaint filed in federal court naming plaintiff's attorneys and some of his medical providers as defendants (see Linares v City of New York, 233 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2024]).

However, the court should have granted the City's motion to the extent it sought further discovery from plaintiff (see Franco v 800 E 173 LLC, 240 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2025]; Lituma v Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC, 243 AD3d 504, 505 [1st Dept 2025]). The City should be permitted to conduct further limited discovery in the form of a deposition of plaintiff, constrained to what knowledge he had, if any, of the facts underlying allegations in the RICO action brought against his attorneys and medical providers, and discovery of any documents the City may learn about during that deposition. This limited discovery, however, can be conducted while the case remains on the calendar trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]).

The City's request for a stay of plaintiff's summary judgment motion is moot, as a decision has been rendered on that motion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 3, 2026