Opinion
April 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
A motion for leave to amend a pleading is committed to the broad discretion of the trial court, and the resulting determination will not lightly be set aside ( see, Scott v General Motors Corp., 202 A.D.2d 570; Napoli v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 166 A.D.2d 696). In this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the branches of the plaintiff's motions which were to amend the complaint.
The proposed amendment which was the subject of the plaintiff's first motion was "`patently lacking in merit'" ( Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667, 668; Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 A.D.2d 795). As to the second motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the almost seven-year delay in seeking leave to add claims based on new legal theories and transactions which occurred prior to the commencement of this action. His failure to recognize the potential applicability of certain legal theories does not excuse the extensive delay in this case ( see, Napoli v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., supra, at 697). Santucci, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.