DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint, because the plaintiffs failed to make an evidentiary showing that the proposed amendment had merit (see Arnold v. Siegel, 296 A.D.2d 363; Ogilvie v. McDonald's Corp., 294 A.D.2d 550; Tatzel v. Kaplan, 292 A.D.2d 440; Rice v. Penguin Putnam, 289 A.D.2d 318; Citarelli v. American Ins. Co., 282 A.D.2d 494; Curran v. Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 A.D.2d 636). While leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]), a movant must make some evidentiary showing, and "a court must examine the underlying merit of the proposed claims, since to do otherwise would be wasteful of judicial resources" (Morgan v. Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, 251 A.D.2d 306).
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.