Opinion
November 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant Monarch Life Insurance Company for leave to serve an amended answer to include a counterclaim. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's counterclaim was interposed within the six-year Statute of Limitations, since the defendant could not have reasonably discovered the alleged fraud until 1986, when the summons and complaint were served (see, CPLR 213). In addition, it cannot be said that the counterclaim is patently deficient (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 A.D.2d 583). Finally, since discovery had not been completed at the time of the defendant's motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice as a result of the amendment (see, Sabol Rice v Poughkeepsie Galleria Co., 175 A.D.2d 555, 556; cf., Pellegrino v New York City Tr. Auth., 177 A.D.2d 554).
In Zeide v National Cas. Co. ( 187 A.D.2d 577 [decided herewith]), this Court granted the motion of the defendant Monarch Life Insurance Company for summary judgment. Accordingly, the issue of the propriety of the defenses asserted in its amended answer is academic. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.