Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the appellant's contention that allowing it to amend its answer would result in no prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the court's denial of the appellant's motion, while permitting it to make the same application to the Trial Judge, was not an improvident exercise of discretion in light of the appellant's failure to include a proposed amended answer with its motion papers ( see, Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639; Barry v. Niagara Frontier Tr. Sys., 38 A.D.2d 878; see also, Branch v. Abraham Strauss Dept. Store, 220 A.D.2d 474). Nor did the appellant's counsel present the proposed amendment in his supporting affirmation ( cf., Jimenez v. Shippy Realty Corp., 163 Misc.2d 121, 123). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.