| Long Is. Tit. Agency, Inc. v Frisa |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09000 [45 AD3d 649] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Long Island Title Agency, Inc., Appellant, v Jean Frisa,Respondent. |
—[*1] Kenneth J. Weinstein, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael J. Langer of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, for repayment of loans, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an orderof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated July 19, 2006, as granted that branch ofthe defendant's cross motion which was for leave to amend her answer to assert the defense of thestatute of frauds.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend pleadings 'shall be freely given upon suchterms as may be just.' Thus, motions for leave to amend are liberally granted absent prejudice orsurprise. A court hearing a motion for leave to amend will not examine the merits of theproposed amendment 'unless the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt. . . In cases where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter oflaw or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied' " (Ricca v Valenti 24 AD3d 647, 648 [2005] [citations omitted]).Since the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient as a matter of law nor totallydevoid of merit, and no prejudice or surprise was shown, leave to amend was properly granted(see Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935 [1978]; Old World Custom Homes, Inc. v Crane,33 AD3d 600 [2006]; see alsoZwiebel v Guttman, 26 AD3d 429, 431 [2006]; cf. Corman v LaFountain, 38 AD3d 706, 707 [2007]; Negvesky v United Interior Resources, Inc.,32 AD3d 530, 531 [2006]; Darbonne v Goldberger, 31 AD3d 693, 696 [2006]; Clark v Trois, 21 AD3d 439, 440[2005]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.