Federal Ins. Co. v Lakeville Pace Mech. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01544 [1st Dept 2018]
Defendant waited more than two years to move to amend its answer to include the statute of limitations defense, arguing that plaintiff's construction negligence claim, with a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214), was untimely.
Moreover, defendant made its motion almost immediately after the expiration of the six-year limitations period (by defendant's calculation) in which plaintiff could have brought the same action as a breach of contract, even though all of the facts relied upon by defendant were known to it at the time it filed its original answer. Plaintiff, relying on defendant's waiver of any statute of limitations defense (CPLR 3211[e]), was prejudiced by the loss of the opportunity to interpose a timely breach of contract claim, which it could have done "had the original pleading contained what the [proposed] amended one wants to add" Armstrong v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. , 150 AD2d 189, 190 [1st Dept 1989]).
The motion court properly concluded that these circumstances warranted denial of defendant's motion (see CPLR 3025[b]).