Order affirmed, with costs to third-party defendant-repondent.
As a general rule, leave to amend should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay (CPLR 3025 [b]; McCaskey, Davies Assoc. v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755; Scheff v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 115 A.D.2d 532). The plaintiff does not claim either prejudice or surprise, but argues that the motion should have been denied on the ground that the proposed affirmative defenses have no merit. The established rule, however, is that the legal sufficiency or merits of proposed amendments will not be examined on a motion to amend unless the insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt (see, Norman v Ferrara, 107 A.D.2d 739; Goldstein v Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp., 90 A.D.2d 512). That is not the case here. Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.