Opinion
March 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert S. Rose, J.).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend her bill of particulars to include new injuries and a new theory of recovery eight years after the lawsuit was commenced, over a year after the matter was placed on the trial calendar, and after the jury had been selected (Simpson v Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Servs., 146 A.D.2d 769). Plaintiff failed to satisfactorily explain this long delay in seeking the amendment (see, Pearce v Booth Mem. Hosp., 152 A.D.2d 553), and defendant would be substantially prejudiced were the amendment permitted (Eggeling v County of Nassau, 97 A.D.2d 395).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.