| Scofield v DeGroodt |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07229 [54 AD3d 1017] |
| September 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gary Scofield et al., Appellants, v John DeGroodt et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] David A. Sears, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the use and occupancy of real property, theplaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), datedSeptember 19, 2007, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amendthe complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion forleave to amend the complaint, inter alia, to add a cause of action alleging unjust enrichment andto recover in quantum meruit. In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, amotion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) should be freely grantedunless the proposed amendment is "palpably insufficient" to state a cause of action or is patentlydevoid of merit (Lucido v Mancuso,49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]; seeSmith-Hoy v AMC Prop. Evaluations, Inc., 52 AD3d 809 [2008]; Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York CitySchool Constr. Auth., 46 AD3d 874 [2007]; G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v Lazzari, 44 AD3d 95, 99 [2007]). Here,the insufficiency and lack of merit of the plaintiffs' proposed amended claims that, inter alia, thedefendants were unjustly enriched at their expense are clear and free from doubt (see Lucidov Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 227; see generally Bradkin v Leverton, 26 NY2d 192,196-197 [1970]; Old Republic Natl. Tit.Ins. Co. v Luft, 52 AD3d 491, 492 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Carni andLeventhal, JJ., concur.