Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant's response to plaintiff's counsel's demand letter constituted impermissible retaliation under the NYCHRL because the response accused plaintiff of visa fraud in an effort to deter him from filing a discrimination suit against defendant. However, plaintiff does not allege that he occupies a subordinate position in an ongoing economic relationship with defendant, or that defendant's response to plaintiff's counsel's demand letter harmed him professionally. Consequently, plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation and, thus, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of defendant's cross-motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged retaliation (see id.; cf. Smith v Federal Defenders of NY, Inc., 161 AD3d 506, 508 [2018]).
"Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit" (Precious Care Mgt., LLC v Monsey Care, LLC, 221 AD3d 922, 924 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Strunk v Paterson, 145 AD3d 700, 701 [2016]). "The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion" (Mitchell v Jimenez, 233 AD3d 773, 776 [2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see National Recruiting Group, LLC v Bern Ripka LLP, 183 AD3d 831, 832 [2020]). "In determining a motion for leave to amend a pleading, a court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless such insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt" (Dray v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 227 AD3d 664, 666 [2024] [int