BEHRMANN v. HEINZ PET PRODUCTS

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to file a late jury demand. The plaintiff failed to make an adequate factual showing that the specific designation of a nonjury trial on her note of issue was the result of inadvertence or other excusable conduct and that she did not intend to waive her right to a jury trial (see, Tarantino v City of New York, 148 A.D.2d 601; Joseph v Exxon Corp., 83 A.D.2d 549; Brigando v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 A.D.2d 865). Balletta, J.P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.