Opinion
April 12, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, John O'C. Conway, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Moule, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve an amended complaint (CPLR 3025, subd [b]). Leave to amend pleadings should not be denied on the basis of "'lateness'" unless it is "'coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine.'" ( Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959, quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:5, p 477.) It is well settled that it is an abuse of discretion as a matter of law to deny the motion in the absence of "prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay" ( Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935; Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400; Stornelli v Aakron Rule Corp., 89 A.D.2d 1060; Cardy v Frey, 86 A.D.2d 968). Here, defendant made no tenable claim of either prejudice or surprise.