The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105 were read on this motion to AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff 260-261 Madison Avenue LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Landlord”) seeks leave to amend the summons and complaint (NYSCEF 1-2 ["Compl."]) to name additional defendants and to add allegations to pierce the corporate veil of Defendant WeWork 261 Madison LLC (“WeWork Tenant”) to hold its parent entities liable for its alleged breach of the lease (see NYSCEF 34 [Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC")]). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. CPLR 3025(b) provides that “[a] party may amend his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court….” “Motions for leave to amend should be freely granted, absent prejudice or surprise…unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]). Courts have held that prejudice “arises when a party incurs a change in position or is hindered in the preparation of its case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of its position” (Valdes v. Marbrose Realty, 289 AD2d 28, 29 [1st Dept 2001]; Anoun v. City of New York, 85 AD3d 694, 694 [1st Dept 2011]). A party opposing leave to amend “must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment].” (CIFG Assur. N. Am., Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 146 AD3d 60, 65 [1st Dept 2010]). “Courts may pierce the corporate veil where the two entities ‘operated as a single economic entity such that it would be inequitable for [a] [c]ourt to uphold a legal distinction between them’” (Tap Holdings, LLC v. Orix Fin. Corp., 109 AD3d 167, 175 [1st Dept 2013]; see also Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Bonderman, 31 NY3d 30, 47 [2018] [piercing the corporate veil requires "complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked" and "that such domination was used" inequitably against plaintiff, resulting in the harm] [internal quotation marks omitted]). While there is no fixed formula in determining whether entities “exercised complete dominion” with respect to one another, “deliberately undercapitalizing a company to keep it judgment proof while operating the business through another alter-ego company is a textbook example of when veil piercing is appropriate” (Pensmore Invs., LLC v. Gruppo, Levey & Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 30661(U) at *19 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]). Here, in additional to the current defendants, WeWork 261 Madison LLC (“WeWork Tenant”) and Adam Neumann, Plaintiff seeks to add WeWork Inc., WW Holdco LLC, The We Company MC LLC, The We Company Management Holdings L.P., WeWork Companies LLC, We Work Management LLC, and WW BuildCo LLC (collectively “WeWork Parent” and, with WeWork Tenant, “WeWork”) as defendants (PAC
