Insofar as plaintiff's motion, made nearly one year after the filing of his note of issue, raised a new theory of liability based upon the alleged negligence of a nonparty, it was properly denied. Although plaintiff had been on notice for several months prior to the filing of his note of issue of the facts pertinent to the proposed amendment, he offered no explanation for his delay in moving to amend ( see, CPLR 3042 [b]; 3043 [b]; Brugnano v. Merrill Lynch Co., 216 A.D.2d 18, lv dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 880; Reynolds v. A. C. Towne Corp., 132 A.D.2d 952).
However, plaintiff should have been permitted to file a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to defendants' alleged violations of statutes, ordinances, rules, and/or regulations, since these amendments, which merely amplify and elaborate upon facts and theories already set forth in the original bill of particulars, raise no new theory of liability ( see, Taveras v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 221 A.D.2d 166; Rothstein v. City Univ., 194 A.D.2d 533).
Concur — Rubin, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.