— In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated April 23, 1986, which denied her motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a new cause of action for punitive damages.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We conclude that the denial of the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for punitive damages was a proper exercise of discretion. A demand for punitive damages does not amount to a separate cause of action for pleading purposes (see, e.g., Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp.,
Notwithstanding this defect, the plaintiffs effort to amend her complaint fails on another ground. The courts may examine the sufficiency of the pleadings on a motion to amend to determine if a claim is patently deficient and decide the issue as a threshold matter to avoid the possibility of needless litigation (see, Sharapata v Town of Islip,
