TRUEBRIGHT CO. v. LESTER

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it, in effect, granted the defendant's motion for leave to amend his answer, as the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the plaintiffs ( see CPLR 3025 [b]; Matter of Roberts v Borg, 35 AD3d 617, 618; Public Adm'r of Kings County v Hossain Constr. Corp., 27 AD3d 714, 716). To the extent that the plaintiffs "wish[] to test the merits of the proposed added . . . defense, [they] may . . . move for summary judgment upon a proper showing" ( Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229).