MATHEWS v. VISUAL THERMOFORMING

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Prescotech A Company of Tennetics, Inc. to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense. When seeking leave to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), "it is incumbent upon a movant to make `some evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported'" (Mathiesen v Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736, 737, quoting Cushman Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 133, 135). Here, the motion was supported only by an unsworn document of counsel, who lacked personal knowledge of the facts. That document was insufficient to warrant the relief sought (see, Santoro v Oppman, 150 A.D.2d 667, 668; Bonanni v Straight Arrow Publs., 133 A.D.2d 585, 588). In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining issues raised by the parties.