The case has not proceeded to the point where judicial estoppel would apply to prevent the requested amendments to the complaint ( see, Hinman, Straub, Pigors Manning v Broder, 124 A.D.2d 392, 393). The slow progress of the case, which has been noted by this Court on prior appeals ( 189 A.D.2d 217; 202 A.D.2d 252), is largely the fault of the individual defendants, and in light of that history, it is disingenuous for them to claim undue delay and surprise. Nor are the additional causes of action, which are merely new theories of recovery arising out of transactions and occurrences already in litigation, barred by the Statute of Limitations ( Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 473, 477).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.