DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated November 30, 2001, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for specific performance is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered March 21, 2002, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.
Although leave to amend a pleading should generally be liberally granted (see McCaskey, Davies Assoc. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group, 176 A.D.2d 718), if the proposed amendment is patently lacking in merit or its lack of merit is clear and free from doubt, it will not be permitted and leave should be denied as a matter of law (see McKiernan v. McKiernan, 207 A.D.2d 825; Staines v. Nassau Queens Med. Group, supra).
In the instant case, there was no evidence in the record, at the time that the motion was decided, indicating that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close on the law date. In fact, the evidence was to the contrary. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for specific performance (see Posner v. Central Synagogue, 202 A.D.2d 284; Public Improvements v. Parker Const. Corp., 59 A.D.2d 671).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.