Majority
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered September 1, 1987, as denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is firmly established that, while leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025 [b]), a motion to amend is committed to the broad discretion of the trial court (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957 ; Kramer & Sons v Facilities Dev. Corp., 135 AD2d 942 ; Fulford v Baker Perkins, 100 AD2d 861 ), and the resulting determination “will not lightly be set aside” (Beuschel v Malm, 114 AD2d 569 ).
The record before us reveals that the plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking to amend her complaint despite her awareness of the alleged facts underlying the proposed amendment
Cases cited
- Edenwald Contracting Co. v. City of New York 60 NY2d 957 p. 429
- M. Kramer & Sons, Inc. v. Facilities Development Corp. 135 AD2d 942 p. 429
- Fulford v. Baker Perkins, Inc. 100 AD2d 861 p. 429
- Beuschel v. Malm 114 AD2d 569 p. 429
- Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center 106 AD2d 362 p. 430
- Mayers v. D'Agostino 58 NY2d 696 p. 430
- Axelrod v. Axelrod 106 AD2d 913 p. 430
- Shanahan v. Shanahan 92 AD2d 566 p. 430