Opinion
2001-04147
Submitted January 16, 2002.
February 19, 2002.
In an action to recover for property damage, the defendants Kevlan Corp. and Isaac Zarabi appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated April 16, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contribution and indemnification.
Jack M. Martins, Mineola, N.Y. (Louis L. Martins of counsel), for appellants.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants' motion for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contribution and indemnification. CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to amend pleadings should be "freely given". While the decision to permit or deny the amendment is entrusted to the sound discretion of the court (see, Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 404-405), "[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" (Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959, quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Law of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025:5, at 477). "Prejudice to the adverse party is the main barrier which prevents granting a motion to amend an answer" (Bernstein v. Spatola, 122 A.D.2d 97, 100; see, Nikac v. Rukaj, 276 A.D.2d 537; Northbay Construction Co. v. Bauco Construction Corp., 275 A.D.2d 310, 312; Huntington v. Trotta Auto Wreckers, 257 A.D.2d 647). The respondents failed to demonstrate that they would be prejudiced by an amendment.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.