DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to, in effect, add Matrix Display Exhibits, Inc., as a defendant is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, Patrylo v. Metro Fuel Oil Corp., 276 A.D.2d 612 [2d Dept., Oct. 16, 2000]; Caballero v. Caballero, 247 A.D.2d 352); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend its complaint to add four new causes of action against the appellant is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add four new causes of action against the appellant. While generally leave to amend should be freely given (see, CPLR 3025[b]), there must be a proper basis for granting such a motion. The movant must make some evidentiary showing that the proposed amendment has merit (see, Morgan v. Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, 251 A.D.2d 306; Mathiesen v. Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736). The plaintiff failed to make such a showing in this case (see, Morgan v. Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, supra; Clark v. Foley, 240 A.D.2d 458; Mathiesen v. Mead, supra).