opposing the amendment can demonstrate prejudice or surprise from the delay (see CPLR
3025[b]; Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398, 399 [2d Dept 1995]). "Mere
lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It is lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the
other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine" (Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New
York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983], quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons
Law of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3025.5, p. 477). "Prejudice requires 'some indication that the
defendant has been hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking
some measure in support of its position'" (Kocourek v Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d 502, 504 [1st Dept
2011] [internal citations omitted]).
Furthermore, mistakes or irregularities not affecting a substantial right of a party are not fatal
(see Covina v Alside Aluminum Supply Co., 42 AD2d 77, 80 [4th Dept 1973]). Rather,
"[m]istakes relating to the name of a party, involving a misnomer or misdescription of the legal
status of a party surely fall within the category of those irregularities which are subject to
correction by amendment, particularly when the other party is not prejudiced and should have
been well aware from the outset that a misdescription was involved" (id.).
Here, the court determines that the caption in the pleadings should be amended to [*4]conform to the proper legal name of the Owner of the Subject
Apartment. The apparent mistake relating to the name of the plaintiff can be traced to the
misidentification of the Owner in the lease agreements. In fact, the Owner is verifiable from the
Deed. The submissions do not include any evidence to indicate that either party intended to