Global Business Institute v. Rivkin Radler LLP

The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion. Leave to amend the pleadings is freely granted, absent prejudice (see Mandel, Resnik & Kaiser, P.C. v E.I. Elecs., Inc., 41 AD3d 386, 388 [2007]; see also Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18 [1981]), and plaintiff has stated, at this juncture, a cognizable claim against defendant law firm for failure to sufficiently advise it of the consequences of the tax escalation clause in the lease it eventu 554 ally executed with its landlord several months after retaining defendant (see Escape Airports [USA], Inc. v Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 79 AD3d 437 [2010]). Furthermore, in view of the foregoing and the additional damages sought, the matter should be transferred to Supreme Court (see Firequench, Inc. v Kaplan, 256 AD2d 213 [1998]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Acosta, Richter and Román, JJ.