Opinion
March 9, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.).
Ordered that the appeal by Magesty Securities Corporation is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as it is not aggrieved by the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Marshall Crowley, Miles A. Galin, and Richard Wertis, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements.
The appellants contend that the court should have denied the motion of East Patchogue Contracting Corporation (hereinafter Patchogue) to amend its complaint based on Patchogue's failure to submit an affidavit explaining why the amendment should be permitted.
We disagree. It is well-settled that courts are given the widest possible latitude in granting leave to amend pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) (see, Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400). In this case there is no claim that the appellants would be prejudiced by the granting of the motion and the application did not come on the eve of trial (see, Murray v City of New York, supra; cf., Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. Health Center, 106 A.D.2d 362).
There is also no merit to the appellants' allegations that the amended first and third causes of action improperly failed to state causes of actions against them based on the fact that Patchogue entered into the subject contract only with Magesty Securities Corporation (hereinafter Magesty). Based on the submissions alone, the Supreme Court could not have determined whether the appellants, who appear to have been agents of Magesty, acted outside of their authority and thus were liable to the plaintiff (see, Riverside Research Inst. v KMGA, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 689). Finally, contrary to the appellants' contention, the fourth and fifth causes of action pleaded in the amended complaint were not insufficient as a matter of law. The amended complaint properly alleged that the appellants had a present intent not to carry out the promises of future payment (see, Lanzi v Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.