However, we disagree with the Civil Court's denial of the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend so much of the complaint as alleges promissory estoppel. As the Civil Court did not dismiss so much of the original complaint as alleges promissory estoppel—a determination from which defendant did not appeal—and the fourth cause of action in the proposed amended complaint simply adds more detail to the original claim, it cannot be said at this juncture that the fourth cause of action in the proposed amended complaint is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. Moreover, defendant did not demonstrate that it would be prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendment to the promissory estoppel claim (see Tenenbaum v Ziv, 231 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2024]; National Loan Invs., L.P. v New Zion Church of the Apostolic Faith, Inc., 213 AD3d 860, 862 [2023]).
The Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to add Xinshuang Zhai, Lucky Sky USA, and iJiaBuy, Inc. as party defendants, as the proposed amended complaint does not allege their involvement in the sole remaining cause of action, promissory estoppel (see CPLR 1003; Scialdone v Stepping Stones Assoc., L.P., 148 AD3d 950, 952 [2017]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to amend so much of the complaint as alleges promissory estoppel is granted.
BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 16, 2025