Majority
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. “Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see CPLR 3025 [b]), the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” (Strunk v Paterson, 145 AD3d 700 , 701 [2016]; see Attias v Costiera, 120 AD3d 1281 , 1283 [2014]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 , 229 [2008]). “ ‘The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court’ ” (Attias v Costiera, 120 AD3d at 1283 , quoting Marcum, LLP v Silva, 117 AD3d 917 , 917 [2014]). Here, the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit.
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Strunk v. Paterson 145 AD3d 700 at 701 p. 998
- Attias v. Costiera 120 AD3d 1281 at 1283 p. 998
- Lucido v. Mancuso 49 AD3d 220 at 229 p. 998
- Marcum, LLP v. Silva 117 AD3d 917 at 917 p. 998