GITLIN v. CHIRINKIN (2009)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered October 22, 2008, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the second through fifth causes of action of the amended verified complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

 Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit (see Sheila Props., Inc. v. A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 424, 874 N.Y.S.2d 145;  Boakye-Yiadom v. Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 57 A.D.3d 929, 871 N.Y.S.2d 314).   A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see Ingrami v. Rovner, 45 A.D.3d 806, 808, 847 N.Y.S.2d 132).   Here, the plaintiff's proposed amendments were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the defendants did not demonstrate prejudice or surprise from the same.   Further, in light of the plaintiff's allegations as to when he discovered the alleged fraudulent conduct (see Oggioni v. Oggioni, 46 A.D.3d 646, 848 N.Y.S.2d 245;  Del Vecchio v. Nassau County, 118 A.D.2d 615, 499 N.Y.S.2d 765), and his allegations giving rise to his contention that the defendants should be equitably estopped from interposing a statute of limitation defense as to the remaining causes of action (see Zumpano v. Quinn, 6 N.Y.3d 666, 816 N.Y.S.2d 703, 849 N.E.2d 926;  Bobash, Inc. v. Festinger, 57 A.D.3d 464, 868 N.Y.S.2d 747), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendants' contention that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint was untimely (cf. Peteroy v. St. Vincent's Medical Center of Richmond, 278 A.D.2d 295, 718 N.Y.S.2d 199;  Lucido v. Vitolo, 251 A.D.2d 383, 672 N.Y.S.2d 818).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.