Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"CPLR 3025 (b) provides that leave to amend pleadings `shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just.' Thus, motions for leave to amend are liberally granted absent prejudice or surprise. A court hearing a motion for leave to amend will not examine the merits of the proposed amendment `unless the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt . . . In cases where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied'" ( Ricca v Valenti 24 AD3d 647, 648 [citations omitted]). Since the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient as a matter of law nor totally devoid of merit, and no prejudice or surprise was shown, leave to amend was properly granted ( see Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 935; Old World Custom Homes, Inc. v Crane, 33 AD3d 600; see also Zwiebel v Guttman, 26 AD3d 429, 431; cf. Corman v LaFountain, 38 AD3d 706, 707; Negvesky v United Interior Resources, Inc., 32 AD3d 530, 531; Darbonne v Goldberger, 31 AD3d 693, 696; Clark v Trois, 21 AD3d 439, 440).