Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint so as to add a claim to recover damages for wrongful termination based on discrimination because of an alleged disability (see, Executive Law § 296 [a]). Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given unless the amendment sought is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law, or unless the delay in seeking the amendment directly results in prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see, McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935; Bovino v. Village of Wappingers Falls, 215 A.D.2d 619, 620; see also, CPLR 3025 [b]). The decision to allow or disallow an amendment is committed to the court's sound discretion (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959), and the exercise of such discretion should not be lightly disturbed (see, Sherman v. Claire Mfg. Co., 239 A.D.2d 487; Beuschel v. Malm, 114 A.D.2d 569).
The plaintiff, who has been aware of the facts underlying this alleged claim since the inception of the action, failed to offer any reason or excuse for the delay in seeking to amend her complaint (see, Mathiesen v. Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736, 737; Alexander v. Seligman, 131 A.D.2d 528). In addition, the defendants, who have prepared their case in response to the original complaint, had no notice of the new claim and would suffer prejudice by its late addition (see, Felix v. Lettre, 204 A.D.2d 679; cf., Rose v. Velletri, 202 A.D.2d 566, 567; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v. 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 A.D.2d 533, 534). Accordingly, the court did not err in refusing to permit the requested amendment.
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.