Capri v. Power ( 1996 )

The proposed amended second cause of action, insofar as asserted against the appellants, is patently lacking in merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint as against the appellants (see, Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 AD2d 667; Del Bourgo v 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 AD2d 795). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.