Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave so as to assert an otherwise apparently meritorious cause of action absent an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice * * * or where the party opposing the motion to serve an amended pleading cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting directly from the delay" ( Banfi Prods. Corp. v. Gentile, 236 A.D.2d 348, 349; see also, Roberts v. Alexander's, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 677, 678). The defendant has not demonstrated how it has suffered significant prejudice as a result of the delay ( see, Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23-24). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.