| Zeleznik v MSI Constr., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03637 [50 AD3d 1024] |
| April 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Michael Zeleznik et al., Appellants, v MSI Construction,Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Freeman Howard, P.C., Hudson, N.Y. (Cailin C. Brennan of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated April 24, 2007, which denied theirmotion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve an amended complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given absent surprise or prejudiceresulting from the delay, the determination whether to grant such leave is within the discretion ofthe motion court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed (seeCPLR 3025 [b]; Young v A. HollyPatterson Geriatric Ctr., 17 AD3d 667 [2005]; Sewkarran v DeBellis, 11 AD3d 445 [2004]; Travelers Prop.Cas. v Powell, 289 AD2d 564 [2001]). Moreover, a plaintiff must meet his or her burden ofdemonstrating that the proposed amendments to the complaint were not palpably insufficient orpatently devoid of merit (see Lucido vMancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2008]).
In light of the plaintiffs' extended delay in moving for leave to serve an amended complaintand the surprise and prejudice to the defendant resulting therefrom, as well as the plaintiffs'failure to show that the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient or patently devoidof merit, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motionfor leave to serve an amended complaint (see Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2008]). Fisher, J.P., Miller,Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.