Opinion
2003-08340.
Decided June 21, 2004.
In two related actions, inter alia, to recover an attorney's fee and to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, which were joined for trial, the defendants in Action No. 2 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 20, 2003, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs in that action for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
Ohrenstein Brown, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christopher B. Hitchcock of counsel), for appellants.
Andrew D. Brodnick, White Plains, N.Y., for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Leave to amend a complaint is to be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the defendants, or unless the proposed amendment is patently devoid of merit ( see CPLR 3025[b]; Ortega v. Bisogno Meyerson, 2 A.D.3d 607, 609; Scavo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 238 A.D.2d 571, 572). Here, the appellants did not argue that they were prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendment, and did not demonstrate that the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit ( see Giblin v. Murphy, 73 N.Y.2d 769; Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354; Nooger v. Jay-Dee Fast Delivery, 251 A.D.2d 307; Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 241). Contrary to the appellants' contention, a claim for punitive damages does not require a showing in every case that the conduct complained of was directed at the public generally ( see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308; Giblin v. Murphy, supra at 772; Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401; Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., supra at 247; cf. D'Antoni v. Ansell, 184 A.D.2d 678, 680). Thus, leave to amend was properly granted.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.