Plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint was properly denied since its complaint had been dismissed on a prior motion as time-barred and there was, accordingly, nothing left before the court to amend ( see Jeffrey L. Rosenberg Assocs., LLC v. Kadem Capital Mgt., 306 A.D.2d 155). In any event, plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, although containing differently named causes, relies on essentially the same allegations that the motion court and this Court, in affirming the complaint's dismissal ( 306 A.D.2d 36), found insufficient to state timely claims for relief ( see Gottfried v. Gottfried, 269 App. Div. 413, 422).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.