DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Leave to amend a complaint is to be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the defendants, or unless the proposed amendment is patently devoid of merit ( see CPLR 3025[b]; Ortega v. Bisogno Meyerson, 2 A.D.3d 607, 609; Scavo v. Allstate Ins. Co., 238 A.D.2d 571, 572). Here, the appellants did not argue that they were prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendment, and did not demonstrate that the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit ( see Giblin v. Murphy, 73 N.Y.2d 769; Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354; Nooger v. Jay-Dee Fast Delivery, 251 A.D.2d 307; Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 241). Contrary to the appellants' contention, a claim for punitive damages does not require a showing in every case that the conduct complained of was directed at the public generally ( see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308; Giblin v. Murphy, supra at 772; Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401; Suffolk Sports Ctr. v. Belli Constr. Corp., supra at 247; cf. D'Antoni v. Ansell, 184 A.D.2d 678, 680). Thus, leave to amend was properly granted.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.