accrued, unpaid rental amount attributable to the second-year rent increase.
CPLR 305(c) permits a court to allow an amendment "[a]t any time, in its discretion and
upon such terms as it deems just ... if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons
issued is not prejudiced." Nevertheless, "[w]hen an amendment to a pleading ... is sought at or on
the eve of trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendment should be 'discreet, circumspect,
prudent and cautious'" (Garguilo v Port
Auth. of NY & N.J., 137 AD3d 708, 708-709 [1st Dept 2016]). "In exercising its
discretion, the court will consider how long the amending party was aware of the facts upon
which the motion was predicated, and whether a reasonable excuse for the delay is offered"
(Caruso v Anpro, Ltd., 215 AD2d 713, 713 [2d Dept 1995]).
Here, plaintiffs assert that it was during the final phase of discovery, during depositions, that
questions pertaining to the proposed amendments were explored and resolved. Plaintiffs also
argue that a cross motion was made shortly after the parties completed discovery and filed the
Note of Issue. They further contend that they merely seek to update the pleadings to provide for
the total damage claim they produced at discovery, and not to assert a new theory of
liability.
As stated, plaintiffs executed both leases in 2015, and filed the original and amended
pleadings in 2016. They did not seek to further amend pleadings to include factual allegations
seeking to enforce a reformed version of the Second Lease until 2018, after the parties had
completed discovery, and after the Note of Issue had been filed. The assertion that questions
pertaining to the enforcement of a reformed Second Lease were first explored during the final