Opinion
2015-04-01
Irina GALANOVA, appellant, v. Irina SAFIR, et al., respondents.
Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Arthur Morrison, Hawthorne, N.Y., for appellant. Braverman Greenspun, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Tracy Peterson and Kelly Ringston of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated April 5, 2013, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause 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 a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” (Marcum, LLP v. Silva, 117 A.D.3d 917, 917, 986 N.Y.S.2d 508; see CPLR 3025[b]; Bernardi v. Spyratos, 79 A.D.3d 684, 688, 912 N.Y.S.2d 627; Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 220, 227, 851 N.Y.S.2d 238). “A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” (Thalle Indus., Inc. v. Holubar, 121 A.D.3d 671, 672, 993 N.Y.S.2d 366 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Greco v. Christoffersen, 70 A.D.3d 769, 770, 896 N.Y.S.2d 363).
Here, the proposed cause of action alleging malicious prosecution failed to plead the required element of interference with person or property ( see Engel v. CBS, Inc., 93 N.Y.2d 195, 205, 689 N.Y.S.2d 411, 711 N.E.2d 626; Muro–Light v. Farley, 95 A.D.3d 846, 846–847, 944 N.Y.S.2d 571; Greco v. Christoffersen, 70 A.D.3d at 770, 896 N.Y.S.2d 363). Accordingly, the proposed cause of action alleging malicious prosecution was palpably insufficient, and, therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert it.