where the plaintiff made a “transparent attempt ... to amend his pleading[s] in order to avoid a dispositive defense” raised by the defendant and the plaintiffs amended complaint directly contradicted his original complaint), aff'd, 356 Fed.Appx. 535 (2d Cir.2009). “While there may be a rare occasion to disregard the contradictory and manipulated allegations of an amended pleading, the more usual and benevolent option is to accept the superseded pleadings but allow the factfinder to consider the earlier pleadings as admissions in due course.” Barris v. Hamilton, No. 96-CV-9541, 1999 WL 311813, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 1999) (citation omitted) (citing Wallace, 1996 WL 586797, at *2); see also Russell v. Hollister Corp., No. 13-CV-5273, 2014 WL 2723236, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2014) (<HOLDING>), adopted by 2014 WL 3928948 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8,
holding original complaint was admission where it alleged an accident occurred on a different date than the amended complaint holding in a case where a pro se plaintiff changed the date on which she allegedly received a right to sue letter between her complaint and her amended complaint that although her modification of the crucial detail of the receipt date was problematic to say the least the proper response was not to strike or dismiss an amended complaint based solely on contradictory statements or those inconsistent with prior pleadings holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing