ORDERED that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended complaint is deemed served.
Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see, CPLR 3025[b]). Although the determination as to whether to grant leave is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Sidor v. Zuhoski, 257 A.D.2d 564), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. There was neither an inordinate delay in moving to amend the complaint nor a showing of significant prejudice to the defendant (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959; Lechtrecker v. Lechtrecker, 176 A.D.2d 284, 285; Scharfman v. National Jewish Hosp. Research Ctr., 122 A.D.2d 939, 941). Moreover, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment is devoid of merit (see, Noanjo Clothing v. L M Kids Fashion, 207 A.D.2d 436; cf., Leszczynski v. Kelly McGlynn, 281 A.D.2d 519; Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp., 273 A.D.2d 458).