Majority
p. 1769Aurora Medical Group, P.C., Respondent, v Tiffany Genewick, M.D., Appellant. [890 NYS2d 849]
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of its employment contract with defendant. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted
p. 1770
plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to serve a second amended complaint. “[Generally, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment[s are] not patently lacking in merit . . ., and the decision whether to grant leave to amend a [pleading] is committed to the sound discretion of the court” (Tag Mech. Sys., Inc. v V.I.P. Structures, Inc., 63 AD3d 1504 , 1505 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957 , 959 [1983]). Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendments “are based upon the same transactions and occurrences as the claims asserted in the first amended complaint and are not time-barred” (Maxon v Franklin Traffic Serv., 261 AD2d 830 , 830 [1999]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.E, Smith, Fahey and Garni, JJ.
Cases cited
- TAG Mechanical System, Inc. v. V.I.P. Structures, Inc. 63 AD3d 1504 at 1505 p. 1770
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York 60 NY2d 957 at 959 p. 1770
- Maxon v. Franklin Traffic Service, Inc. 261 AD2d 830 at 830 p. 1770