Opinion
May 18, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add a demand for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Raymond D. McElfish, for plaintiff-respondent.
Richard E. Lerner, for defendants-appellants.
Before: Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend (see, Pchelka v. Loomis-Root, Inc., 210 A.D.2d 889), since plaintiff's proposed amendment was not "plainly lacking in merit" (see, Rahn v. Carkner, 241 A.D.2d 585, 586). Defendants-appellants were not impermissibly prejudiced by the amendment, since they had not changed position materially or given up a right in reliance on the unamended complaint (see, United States Cablevision Corp. v. Theodoreu, 192 A.D.2d 835, 837). This, moreover, is not a situation in which the party seeking leave to amend knowingly slept on his or her rights (cf., Balport Constr., Co., Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., 134 A.D.2d 309, 312).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.