DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. This cross motion was the fourth motion for dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action, and the second summary judgment motion, in this case, and it violated the general proscription against successive summary judgment motions absent "a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause" ( Marine Midland Bank v. Fosher, 85 A.D.2d 905, 906; see, Taylor v. Brooklyn Hosp., 187 A.D.2d 714). Moreover, there are material issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to amend their answer on the eve of trial in this nearly four year-old case to assert "questionable" affirmative defenses which would prejudice the plaintiff ( see, Glorioso v. DeBlasio, 227 A.D.2d 588).
The defendants' request for sanctions and treble damages is without merit.