Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert direct causes of action against Fort Cica Roofing General Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter Fort Cica). The proposed Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against Fort Cica (the general contractor) have merit, the plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for his delay in seeking leave to amend, and Fort Cica failed to demonstrate that it will suffer any prejudice as a result of the amendment ( see CPLR 3025 [b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959; St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co. v. Town of Hempstead, 291 AD2d 488).
The court also properly exercised its discretion in permitting the plaintiff's amended complaint against Fort Cica to relate back to the third-party complaint ( see Khalil v. Guardino, 288 AD2d 349; Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 NY2d 473; see generally Buran v. Coupal, 87 NY2d 173).
The remaining contention of United Specialized Services Corp. is without merit.