Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to amend its answer to include a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its lengthy delay in making the motion and was previously aware of the facts of its proposed counterclaim. In addition, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by the amendment because discovery had been completed and amendment of the answer would result in additional discovery and pretrial proceedings which would delay the trial (see, Wise v Greenwald, 194 A.D.2d 850; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 A.D.2d 533; Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 A.D.2d 554). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.