| Gitlin v Chirinkin |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02322 [60 AD3d 901] |
| March 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Eduard Gitlin, Respondent, v Alex Chirinkin et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Barbara Lee Ford, Floral Park, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), enteredOctober 22, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amendthe second through fifth causes of action of the amended verified complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is notpalpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patentlydevoid of merit (see Sheila Props., Inc. v A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 AD3d 424[2009]; Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 57 AD3d 929 [2008]). Adetermination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, andthe exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see Ingrami v Rovner, 45AD3d 806, 808 [2007]). Here, the plaintiff's proposed amendments were neither palpablyinsufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the defendants did not demonstrate prejudice orsurprise from the same. Further, in light of the plaintiff's allegations as to when he discovered thealleged fraudulent conduct (see Oggioni v Oggioni, 46 AD3d 646 [2007]; DelVecchio v Nassau County, 118 AD2d 615 [1986]), and his allegations giving rise to hiscontention that the defendants should be equitably estopped from interposing a statute oflimitation defense as to the remaining causes of action (see Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d666 [2006]; Bobash, Inc. v Festinger, 57 AD3d 464 [2008]), the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs'motion for leave to amend the complaint was untimely (cf. [*2]Peteroy v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 278 AD2d 295[2000]; Lucido v Vitolo, 251 AD2d 383 [1998]).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Covello andAngiolillo, JJ., concur.