Having once amended their complaint, plaintiffs were not entitled to serve a second amended complaint as of right. The court's denial of leave to amend was not an improvident exercise of discretion ( see Societe Nationale D'Exploitation Industrielle Des Tabacs Et Allumettes v. Salomon Bros. Intl., 268 AD2d 373, lv denied 95 NY2d 762).
Plaintiffs' cause of action for prima facie tort was properly dismissed, notwithstanding this Court's previous finding of legal sufficiency ( 5 AD3d 106), because plaintiffs failed to overcome defendant's showing that the claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine ( see I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Duane Reade, 17 AD3d 206, 208). Plaintiffs similarly failed to make the required showing of malice to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment on their defamation claims. On the other hand, defendant's motion for summary judgment on what remains of plaintiffs' first cause of action was properly denied since plaintiffs sufficiently established that Arts4All may well have suffered quantifiable damages as a result of defendant's statement to Ohio government officials.
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.