KARCZEWSKI v. SHARPE

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) was properly denied as it was made after the expiration of the three-year Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214 (2). Furthermore, the cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint as that action was not timely commenced ( see, Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Serv. Admin., 239 A.D.2d 740, affd 91 N.Y.2d 467; Owens v. Palm Tree Nursing Home, 50 A.D.2d 865).

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.