Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the resettled judgment; and it is further,
Ordered that the resettled judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to amend his answer to include the affirmative defense that the plaintiff's action was barred by the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701). The loan agreement was fully capable of being performed within one year and, therefore, was not covered by the statute (see, D N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 N.Y.2d 449; North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt Sons, 22 N.Y.2d 171, 175; Mann v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 177 A.D.2d 147). Thus, the proposed amendment was devoid of merit (see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166; Nasuf Constr. Corp. v State of New York, 185 A.D.2d 305; Brown v Samalin Bock, 155 A.D.2d 407; Right Turn v Sloan, 88 A.D.2d 889).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.