Majority
—In an action to recover dam
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend a pleading is within the court’s discretion, and the exercise of such discretion will not be lightly disturbed (see, Sherman v Claire Mfg. Co., 239 AD2d 487 ). In this case the defendants did not seek leave to amend the answer in a timely manner, failed to proffer any reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Romeo v Arrigo, 254 AD2d 270 ), and did not proffer an adequate showing of merit (see, Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr., 106 AD2d 362 ). Accordingly, the denial of their motion was not an improvident exercise of discretion. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Sherman v. Claire Manufacturing Co. 239 AD2d 487 p. 526
- Romeo v. Arrigo 254 AD2d 270 p. 526
- Bertan v. Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center 106 AD2d 362 p. 526