Opinion
February 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to have granted leave to the plaintiffs to amend the complaint "by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences" (CPLR 3025 [b]). The defendants did not demonstrate that the amendments were either patently without merit (see, Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 N.Y.2d 692, 693; Norman v Ferrara, 107 A.D.2d 739, 740), or would be prejudicial (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23; Maddox v City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 535). The court also properly concluded that the original complaint gave "notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading" (CPLR 203 [e]) and, therefore, that the amendments were not time barred (see, Clarke v Government Employees Ins. Co., 83 A.D.2d 570). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.