Opinion
April 10, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the Supreme Court's denial of leave to serve an amended answer was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Gallo v. Aiello, 139 A.D.2d 490; Fulford v. Baker Perkins, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 861; Perricone v. City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 531, 533, affd 62 N.Y.2d 661). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.