In Estate of Horan v. Town ofSmithtown (282 AD2d 498 [2d Dept 2001]), the Second Department, affirming the order of the IAS Court granting a plaintiff's motion for leave to serve and file an amended complaint, stated: The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to serve and file an amended complaint asserting additional factual allegations and two new causes of action (see, Edenwald Contr. Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 459 N.E.2d 164, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1983]; CPLR 3025[b]). The proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the allegations which must be proven by the plaintiff or diminish the defenses available to the defendants (see, Nassi v. DiLemme Constr. Corp., 250 AD2d 658, 672 N.Y.S.2d 431 [2d Dept 1998]). Moreover, the defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice or surprise as a result of the delay (see, Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934, 380 N.E.2d 146, 408 N.Y.S.2d 314 [1978]; Kalish v. Manhasset Med. Center Hosp., 100 AD2d 507, 472 N.Y.S.2d 714 [2d Dept 1984]). (Id.).