| Pellegrini v Richmond County Ambulance Serv., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01125 [48 AD3d 436] |
| February 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Peter Pellegrini, Respondent, v Richmond CountyAmbulance Service, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Reingold & Tucker, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jordan W. Tucker of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, thedefendant Richmond County Ambulance Service, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered January 10, 2007, asgranted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave toamend the complaint to add a demand for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Leave to amend a complaint is to be freely granted, provided that the proposed amendmentdoes not prejudice or surprise the defendants, is not patently devoid of merit, and is not palpablyinsufficient (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2008]; Glassman vProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc., 23 AD3d 522 [2005]; Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm,8 AD3d 545 [2004]; Ortega vBisogno & Meyerson, 2 AD3d 607, 609 [2003]).
An award of punitive damages is warranted where the conduct of the party being held liable"evidences a high degree of moral culpability, or where the conduct is so flagrant as to transcendmere carelessness, or where the conduct constitutes willful or wanton negligence or recklessness"(Buckholz v Maple Garden Apts., LLC,38 AD3d 584, 585 [2007]).[*2]
Here, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff wassufficient to support his allegations that there was gross negligence or recklessness on the part ofthe appellant's employees, and that management authorized, participated in, consented to, orratified the employees' conduct, or deliberately retained the unfit employees (see Loughry vLincoln First Bank, 67 NY2d 369, 378 [1986]; Sultan v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr.,167 AD2d 534, 535 [1990]). Furthermore, the appellant did not argue that it was prejudicedor surprised by the proposed amendment (see Pirrotti & Pirrotti, LLP v Estate of Warm, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a demand for punitivedamages. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.