Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Although leave to amend a pleading should be liberally granted in the absence of surprise or prejudice ( see, Olean Urban Renewal Agency v. Herman, 101 A.D.2d 712, 713), we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to provide an explanation for the lengthy delay in asserting the claim ( see, Ives v. Correll, 211 A.D.2d 899, 900) and, in addition, defendant established that he would be prejudiced by the amendment in view of the fact that discovery is complete and a note of issue has been filed ( cf., Silvin v. Karwoski, 242 A.D.2d 945).