Opinion
August 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the action is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The defendants are entitled to summary judgment since the plaintiff failed to show any issues of fact requiring a trial. Moreover, some of the claims were already litigated in the prior proceedings in this case. We therefore grant the cross motion and dismiss the action.
We further find no improvident exercise of discretion in the court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The motion was made four years after the previous amended complaint was served, there was no reasonable excuse proffered for the delay, and the causes of action sought to be added plainly lack merit (see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.