DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff's motion for leave to serve supplemental and amended bills of particulars was made approximately 11 years after the commencement of this action, and several years after the action had been certified ready for trial by the filing of a note of issue. The amendments consisted of the addition of new theories of liability not readily discernible from the contents of the original bill of particulars, and would require the defendants to reorient their defense strategy. The only excuse offered for the delay in making the motion is based on the assertion that the plaintiff's counsel had only recently consulted with the type of medical expert who, we find, could have been and should have been consulted approximately 10 years earlier. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion ( see, CPLR 3042[g]; 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Orros v. Yick Ming Yip Realty Corp., 258 A.D.2d 387 [1st Dept., Feb. 23, 1999]; Schwab v. Russel, 231 A.D.2d 820; Keene v. Columbia-Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 214 A.D.2d 430; Lanni v. Sekar, 191 A.D.2d 616; Thompson v. Connor, 178 A.D.2d 752; McLeod v. Duffy, 53 A.D.2d 1011).