them to the evidence at trial. CPLR Rule 3025(c). Applications to amend under both subdivisions
(b) and (c) are to be determined in the same manner and by weighing the same considerations;
that is, they should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the non-moving party, even
after trial, Kimso Apts, LLC v
Gandhi (24 NY3d 403, 411, 23 NE3d 1008, 1013, 998 NYS2d 740, 745 [2014]), except
that under 3025(c) the possibly increased effect on orderly prosecution of the trial might also be a
factor to consider, Murray v New York (43 NY2d 400, 405, 372 NE2d 560, 562, 401
NYS2d 773, 774-775 [1977]).
Here, there is certainly no surprise as to the type of housing Respondent lives in and the court
cannot discern any prejudice that would accrue to Respondent upon an amendment of the
Petition to reflect the correct regulatory status of the premises. Respondent has not alleged that
she changed her position based on the erroneous reference to Rent Stabilization and omission of
a proper reference to the federally-subsidized nature of the premises, or that the error hindered
the preparation of her case or prevented her from taking some measure in support of her position,
which is how "prejudice is defined for purposes of amending a pleading." Whalen v Kawaski
Motors Corp, USA (92 NY2d 288, 293, 703 NE2d 246, 680 NYS2d 435 [1998]); Loomis
v [*11]Civetta Corinno Constr Corp (54 NY2d 18, 23, 429
NE2d 90, 444 NYS2d 571 [1981]). Without such a showing of prejudice, the court exercises its
discretion to allow the Petition's misstatement as to the nature of the tenancy to be amended to
conform with the evidence at trial. See Jordan v McCauley (178 Misc 2d 216, 679
NYS2d 880 [App Term 1st Dep't 1998]); 170 W 85th St Hous Dev Fund Corp v Marks