ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer so as to interpose certain counterclaims. No prejudice or surprise resulted from the delay, and the proposed counterclaims are neither totally devoid of merit nor palpably insufficient as a matter of law (see,Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 404-405 ; Alejandro v. Riportella, 250 A.D.2d 556, 557 ; Tarantini v. Russo Realty Corp., 259 A.D.2d 484 [2d Dept., Mar. 1, 1999]; see also, Bay Ridge Lbr. Co. v. Groenendaal, 175 A.D.2d 94 ; Brandes Meat Corp. v. Cromer, 146 A.D.2d 666, 667 ; Puro Filter Corp. v. Trembley, 266 App. Div. 750 ).
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.