Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Motions for leave to amend pleadings are to be liberally granted absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay ( see, CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935). However, where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave should be denied ( see, Alejandro v. Riportella, 250 A.D.2d 556; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Kero-Sun, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 204; Norman v. Ferrara, 107 A.D.2d 739). Here, the appellant's proposed defense, that the plaintiffs action violates its substantive due process rights under the Federal and State Constitutions, is insufficient as a matter of law, as it failed to identify any government action against it which would involve those rights. Therefore, the motion for leave to amend the answer was properly denied.
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.