Opinion
Submitted November 29, 2000.
December 27, 2000.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 10, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to amend their answer.
Bruce A. Lawrence, Brooklyn, N.Y. (R. Alexander Hulten of counsel), for appellants.
Guy Keith Vann, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the answer is granted, and the amended answer is deemed served.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed amendment was neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see, Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; Bomar v. Lane, 265 A.D.2d 519; Faracy v. McGraw Edison Corp., 229 A.D.2d 463).