ANTWERPSE DIAMANTBANK v. NISSEL (2006)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 16, 2005, which granted defendants' motion to amend their answer to change an admission of an allegation to a denial and to interpose a statute of limitations defense, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay (CPLR 3025 [b] ).  Despite the passage of a year since the filing of the original answer, there was no prejudice to plaintiff because of the lack of significant discovery or other progress in the case (Seda v. New York City Hous. Auth., 181 A.D.2d 469, 581 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1992], lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 759, 589 N.Y.S.2d 309, 602 N.E.2d 1125 [1992];  see also Ancrum v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 301 A.D.2d 474, 755 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2003] ).   In addition, the documents necessary to demonstrate that defendants had a statute of limitations defense to the allegations surrounding the 1999 financial statements they had prepared were in plaintiff's possession.

We have considered plaintiff's other arguments with regard to prejudice and find them highly speculative, unsupported by the record and without merit.