Defendant failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to its notice of the deteriorated condition of the kitchen drainpipe, which resulted in a leak, causing plaintiff to slip and fall (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985]; see also Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-838 [1986]). Defendant failed to address plaintiff's expert report, which was previously exchanged during discovery, and which concluded that the condition of the pipe was longstanding and should have been discovered and properly repaired prior to plaintiff's accident. In any event, even assuming that defendant met its initial burden, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of the expert (see Hernandez v Aldus III Assoc., LP, 115 A.D.3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2014]).

Defendant failed to address plaintiff's expert report, which was previously exchanged during discovery, and which concluded that the condition of the pipe was longstanding and should have been discovered and properly repaired prior to plaintiff's accident. In any event, even assuming that defendant met its initial burden, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the affidavit of the expert (seeHernandez v. Aldus III Assoc., LP, 115 A.D.3d 529, 530, 981 N.Y.S.2d 727 [1st Dept. 2014] ).

Courts have discretion to evaluate a party's motion to amend its bill of particulars (see Hernandez v. Aldus III Associates, LP, 115 AD3d 529, 981 NYS2d 727 [1st Dept 2014]). And, leave to amend a bill of particulars, even following the filing of the note of issue, is ordinarily freely given absent surprise or prejudice to the defendants (see CPLR 3042(b); CPLR 3043(b); Henchy v. VAS Exp. Corp., 981 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01545 [1st Dept 2014] citing Kassis v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn., 258 A.D.2d 271, 272, 685 N.Y.S.2d 44 [1st Dept 1999]; Siegel, N.Y. Prac. § 240 at 418 [5th ed. 2011]; Torres v. New York City Transit Auth., 78 A.D.3d 419, 913 N.Y.S.2d 653 [1st Dept 2010] (grant of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion, even where plaintiff waited until after the note of issue was filed to move to amend the bill of particulars, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay "given the lack of prejudice to defendant and the fact that plaintiff's initial bill of particulars provided notice of the theory of decedent's accident that plaintiff seeks to add")).