DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for leave to serve an amended answer and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Leave to a amend a pleading should be freely given ( see CPLR 3025[b]). Although the determination of whether to grant leave is generally within the discretion of the Supreme Court, in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion ( see Levine v. Levine, 286 A.D.2d 423). Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that the defendant waited for some period of time after the commencement of the divorce action to seek leave to amend her answer to include a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the marriage was void did not justify the denial of that branch of the motion ( see Lechtrecker v. Lechtrecker, 176 A.D.2d 284; Brandt v. Brandt, 149 A.D.2d 646; Merino v. Merino, 55 Misc.2d 1098).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.