{**75 Misc 3d at 38}Also without merit is tenant's claim that the Civil Court, upon renewal, erroneously adhered to its prior determination, which permitted landlord to amend its petition to assert rent increases under Casado. According to tenant, who relies on Matter of 1437 Carroll, LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (150 AD3d 1224 [2017]), landlord waived its right to seek those increases by not reserving that right in its renewal leases. Motions for leave to amend the pleadings are to " 'be freely given' absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay" (McCaskey, Davies & Assoc. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983], quoting CPLR 3025 [b]). At the time landlord filed its petition, the validity of the increases under RGBOs 40 and 41 was under judicial consideration. Thus, the rent demanded in the original petition was a good faith estimation of what was owed by tenant. Once the legality of these increases was upheld in Casado, landlord swiftly moved to amend its petition to assert the increases. Under these circumstances, there is an issue as to whether landlord has the right to recover Casado increases in the instant proceeding. Thus the Civil Court, upon renewal, properly adhered to its original determination granting landlord's motion to amend its petition to assert that right.