DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended complaint which was attached to the plaintiff's motion is deemed served.
Far from being free from doubt ( see Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp. 308 A.D.2d 526; USA Nutritionals v. Pharmalife, Inc. 293 A.D.2d 526; Parisi v. Leppard 237 A.D.2d 419; Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group 176 A.D.2d 718), there is a question whether the plaintiff's proposed additional cause of action for rescission has merit. As the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the alleged breach of contract are not "readily assessable" ( Conlon v. Concord Pools 170 A.D.2d 754, 756), it does not plainly appear from this sparse record that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law ( cf. Marshall v. Alaliewie, 304 A.D.2d 1026; T.F. Demilo Corp. v. E.K. Constr. Co. 207 A.D.2d 480) so as to preclude equitable relief. In addition, the record does not plainly show that the parties cannot be returned to the status quo. In the absence of prejudice to the defendants, who did not oppose the plaintiff's motion, the motion for leave to amend the complaint should have been granted.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.