Opinion
June 10, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action against the appellants alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, is denied.
The proposed amended second cause of action, insofar as asserted against the appellants, is patently lacking in merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as against the appellants (see, Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667; Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 A.D.2d 795). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.