Opinion
March 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint and amended bill of particulars under the circumstances herein (see, Bertan v. Richmond Mem. Hosp., 106 A.D.2d 362). The proposed amendments would clearly result in undue prejudice to the defendants by adding additional instances of alleged malpractice with which "the defendants cannot be charged with having received fair warning" (Daud v. Forest Garden Apts. Co., 178 A.D.2d 578, 580). Additionally, "there seems little doubt that if this amendment is permitted the defendants will have to substantially reorient their defense" (Daud v. Forest Garden Apts. Co., supra, at 580). Revising the defense will be difficult, given that the alleged instances of malpractice occurred more than 15 years ago. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.