Peters, J.
Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendants had breached their contract with her to perform surgical breast augmentation procedures by using size 180 implants rather than the agreed upon size 210 implants. Thereafter plaintiff moved for leave to serve an amended complaint to add a cause of action in medical malpractice. The motion was denied for failure to have supplied a supporting affidavit of merit. It is incumbent upon one seeking leave to amend a pleading to make an evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported (Wise v. Greenwald, 194 A.D.2d 850, 851; Mathiesen v. Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736, 737; Anderson Props. v. Sawhill Tubular Div., Cyclops Corp., 149 A.D.2d 950, 950-951; Polak v. Schwenk, 115 A.D.2d 142, 143; Martin v. County of Madison, 88 A.D.2d 162, 165-166, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 967). Here, plaintiff failed to provide any support for her unspecified claim of medical malpractice. Her attorney's certificate of merit (see, CPLR 3012-a) does not provide proof of medical malpractice and is insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious claim (see, George v. Sastic, 166 A.D.2d 838). Accordingly, we find no abuse of Supreme Court's discretion (see, CPLR 3025 [b]) in denying the motion.
Crew III, J.P., Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.