Opinion
January 27, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Inglehart, J.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Doerr, Green, O'Donnell and Moule, JJ.
Order unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term properly granted plaintiff leave to increase the ad damnum clause in her complaint (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18; Kenford Co. v County of Erie, 93 A.D.2d 998; Stornelli v Aakron Rule Corp., 89 A.D.2d 1060). The court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend her verified bill of particulars to allege additional negligence as set forth in article 25-B of the General Business Law (see Miller v Albany Med. Center Hosp., 95 A.D.2d 977; Bronson v Potsdam Urban Renewal Agency, 74 A.D.2d 967; Rife v Union Coll., 30 A.D.2d 504). Leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of surprise or prejudice (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934).