On July 20, 2022, the Second Department issued a decision in Castaldi v. Castle Restoration, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 04621, holding that an unjustified delay in moving to amend was a proper basis for denying amendment, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given. Courts should grant leave to amend in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.
Where the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent, and cautious. In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated and whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered.
Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in essentially finding that the amendment of the complaint would be inherently prejudicial, and that the plaintiff set forth no reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking the amendment. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).