Opinion
June 2, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs. The appellants' time to answer the amended complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.
Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint to assert additional causes of action. CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his pleading * * * at any time by leave of court" and that "[l]eave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just". It is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to amend in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the other party (see, e.g., Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934; Scarangello v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798; Daigle v. Texas Intl. Co., 109 A.D.2d 648, 649). There can be no valid claim of surprise by the appellants, nor will any actual prejudice result by permitting plaintiff to amend her complaint to assert the additional causes of action, since the appellants were apprised from the outset of the nature of the action and the plaintiff's amended complaint involves the same transaction and set of facts (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959; Scarangello v. State of New York, supra). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.