Opinion
Submitted March 6, 2001
April 5, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the residential zoning classification of the plaintiff's property is unconstitutional and illegal, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated December 23, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.
John B. Zollo, Town Attorney, Smithtown, N.Y. (Jayson J. R. Choi of counsel), for appellants.
Donald J. King, Kings Park, N.Y. (Anne Marie Caradonna of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint asserting additional factual allegations and two new causes of action (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957; CPLR 3025[b]). The proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the allegations which must be proven by the plaintiff or diminish the defenses available to the defendants (see, Nassi v. DiLemme Constr. Corp., 250 A.D.2d 658). Moreover, the defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice or surprise as a result of the delay (see, Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; Kalish v. Manhasset Med. Center Hosp., 100 A.D.2d 507).