HOSPITAL FOR JNT DISEASES v. JAMES KATSIKIS

On a motion to amend pleadings (CPLR 3025 [b]), the court should examine, but need not decide, the merits of the proposed new pleading unless it is patently insufficient on its face (cf., Strook Strook Lavan v Beltramini, 157 A.D.2d 590; Goldberg v Linden Towers Coop. No. 5, 147 A.D.2d 672). Once a prima facie basis for the amendment has been established, that should end the inquiry, even in the face of a rebuttal that might provide the ground for a subsequent motion for summary judgment (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:11).

Expert testimony brought to light during the deposition confirmed the existence of a prima facie cause of action. Defendants have failed to demonstrate prejudice attributable to any delay in making the motion. Accordingly, granting the motion was a proper exercise of the court's discretion (Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.