Opinion
October 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
The IAS court properly granted plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to include two new causes of action for loss of future profits based on a theory of repudiation, despite plaintiff's failure to serve notice of contract renewal in compliance with General Obligations Law § 5-903. The party opposing the motion to amend must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of the moving party (Daniels v. Empire-Orr, Inc., 151 A.D.2d 370, 371). Since the record shows that the defendant may be estopped from relying on General Obligations Law § 5-903 (see, BWA Corp. v. Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 A.D.2d 850, 853), it cannot be said that the new causes of action are insufficient.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.