Panagoulopoulos v. Carlos Ortiz Jr MD, P.C.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful termination of employment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda-Kirwan, J.), dated November 5, 2014, which denied their motion for leave to amend the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. Prior to this motion, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (see Panagoulopoulos v Carlos Ortiz Jr. MD, P.C., 143 AD3d 791 [2016] [decided herewith]). Thus, there was no complaint before the court to amend (see Kazakhstan Inv. Fund v Manolovici, 2 *793 AD3d 249, 250 [2003]; see also Prinz v New York State Elec. & Gas, 82 AD3d 1199 [2011]). In any event, the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Dorce v Gluck, 140 AD3d 1111, 1112-1113 [2016]). Moreover, we note that the proposed amended complaint did not clearly show the changes or additions to be made to the pleading (see CPLR 3025 [b]). Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.