| Galanova v Safir |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02723 [127 AD3d 686] |
| April 1, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Irina Galanova, Appellant, v Irina Safir et al.,Respondents. |
Arthur Morrison, Hawthorne, N.Y., for appellant.
Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Tracy Peterson and Kelly Ringston ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from so muchof an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated April 5, 2013, asdenied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint to add acause of action alleging malicious prosecution.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend apleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficientor patently devoid of merit" (Marcum, LLP v Silva, 117 AD3d 917, 917 [2014]; seeCPLR 3025 [b]; Bernardi vSpyratos, 79 AD3d 684, 688 [2010]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 [2008]). "Adetermination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broaddiscretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed" (Thalle Indus., Inc. v Holubar,121 AD3d 671, 672 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Greco v Christoffersen, 70AD3d 769, 770 [2010]).
Here, the proposed cause of action alleging malicious prosecution failed to plead therequired element of interference with person or property (see Engel v CBS, Inc.,93 NY2d 195, 205 [1999]; Muro-Light v Farley, 95 AD3d 846, 846-847 [2012];Greco v Christoffersen, 70 AD3d at 770). Accordingly, the proposed cause ofaction alleging malicious prosecution was palpably insufficient, and, therefore, theSupreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint toassert it. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.