Mohammed v. City of New YorkMohammed v. City of New York
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Jose Martinez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated December 16, 1996, which denied his motion for leave to amend his answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of Jose Martinez to amend his answer to change an admission to a denial of the allegation that he had given the defendant Orlando Santana permission to drive his car. This Court has consistently maintained that “while leave to amend a pleading shall be freely granted (see, CPLR 3025 [b]), a motion to amend is committed to the broad discretion of the trial court (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York,
In the instant case, Jose Martinez moved to amend his answer almost eight years after his initial answer had been interposed, and he failed to offer a reasonable excuse for this