[brief] Here, the Plaintiffs’ failure to identify Defendant [...] in the R. 4:5-1(b)(2) certification was excusable because it was made based on an analysis performed by its counsel at the time determining that the R. 4:5-1(b)(2) rules would not require naming Defendant [...] given the black letter law of *Olds v. Donnelly*, 150 N.J. 424, 443 (1997).  As set forth by Plaintiff’s prior counsel, [...], Esq. (“[...]”), at his deposition “I don’t handle malpractice claims.  I’ve never prosecuted a malpractice claim.  But I do know that if I miss a timeframe to cancel a contract, whether it be a purchase contract, lease contract or any other kind of contract, and I was informed to do so by my client, I know that could very well result in a malpractice action” (Pa0772).  As set forth above, not only was the failure to amend the R.4:5-1 claim excusable, the Defendants incurred no substantial prejudice.  The loss of evidence or ability to find witnesses in the five (5) month interval between the settlement of the case and the institution of this action has had no effect on Defendants’ ability to defend this action.  The Defendants did not even assert a credible claim of substantial prejudice.  The only hint that Defendants make as to prejudice in this matter is their inability to locate [...].  Yet, Defendants were served with this lawsuit in September of 2020 and they did not seek to depose [...] until July of 2022.  If the Defendants identified a reason why they waited twenty-two (22) months after the filing of the lawsuit to seek to depose [...], they have not set it forth in their papers nor have they set forth any plausible difference it would have made had Mr. [...] amended the R.4:5-1 statement in the underlying action.  As set forth above, pursuant to R. 4:5-1 in the underlying action, the Court, in its discretion, would decide whether or not to notify Mr. [...] if the R. 4:5-1 statement were amended.  If the Court had done so, what difference would it have made?  Does Mr. [...] seriously claim that he would somehow have taken action to preserve the testimony of Michael [...] or to somehow enhance his ability to locate him in the time period between the settlement in February 2020 and September 2020 when they sat on their hands for nearly two (2) years after being sued?  Furthermore, [...] presumably knew of the potential claim for legal malpractice.  As set forth by Mr. [...] on page sixty-eight (68) of his deposition, when an attorney blows a deadline to cancel a lease, they should know that there is a potential legal malpractice claim (Pa0772).  The record does not contain anything from either Mr. [...] or his counsel providing competent evidence of any prejudice they have suffered as the supposed failure of Mr. [...] to amend a R.4:5-1 statement when the party who had been identified in such a statement is not subject to joinder in the action and when the claims of legal malpractice were exempt from the entire controversialy doctrine.  Plaintiffs’ failure to amend the R. 4:5-1 statement did not cause any substantial prejudice and was excusable.  As set forth above, given the holding in Olds, the Plaintiff were entitled to do exactly was they did in the landlord tenant litigation.