Raymond C. Mathiesen v. Loren T. Mead Et Al‪.‬

By deed dated September 5, 1983, defendants conveyed land in the Town of Jewett, Greene County, to plaintiff. In this action,
plaintiff seeks enforcement of a written agreement allegedly made on March 5, 1982 in which defendants agreed to construct
a road and supply electricity and power lines to the property within one year.1 Defendants moved to serve an amended answer
and to strike the note of issue filed by plaintiff, and cross-moved for summary judgment. The amended answer sought to assert
a counterclaim for rescission of the deed, alleging that "plaintiff never signed the deed to cause the restrictions therein
to become effective" and that "defendants were fraudently induced to deliver the deed relying on the plaintiff's representation
that he would abide by the restrictions".2 Supreme Court granted defendants' motions and denied plaintiff's cross motion.
Plaintiff now appeals. Generally, leave to amend pleadings is freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]) and the decision of whether to do so is committed to
the discretion of the trial court, the exercise of which will not lightly be set aside (Newmann v Metropolitan Med. Group,
A.D.2d [May 31, 1990]; Brown v Samalin & Bock, 155 A.D.2d 407). However, circumstances do arise when it is improvident
for a court to grant leave to amend, e.g., if prejudice to the nonmoving party would result or if the amendment plainly lacks
merit (see, Bobrick v Bravstein, 116 A.D.2d 682, 683), or when the causes of action set forth in the amendment are palpably
insufficient on their face (Smith v Bessen, A.D.2d [May 3, 1990]).