In Thomas v. Laustrup (34 AD3d 1115 [3d Dept 2006] the plaintiff asserted causes of action for specific performance and breach of contract, based upon a repudiation. The plaintiff neglected however to include a demand for money damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim for specific performance but "held open" the claim for money damages. The Appellate Division affirmed and thereafter the plaintiff cross-moved to amend the ad damnum clause "to assert a claim for money damages based upon the alleged breach of contract". Upon a denial of the cross-motion the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division reversed, stating: "We discern no . . . prejudice. The amendment does not seek to add a new cause of action or a new party; it merely changes the ad damnum clause by asserting a legal remedy. As to its merit, the basis for the preclusion of the specific performance claim does not impact upon the breach of contract claim predicated upon an anticipatory repudiation."