Defendants-appellants' motion for leave to include the Statute of Limitations as a defense in their answer was made approximately six years after they served their answer, after plaintiff, relying on their waiver of that defense for failure to include it in their answer (CPLR 3211 [e]), had engaged in motion practice and disclosure, placed the case on the calendar, and otherwise spent considerable time and expense preparing for trial. Such prejudice, coupled with appellants' failure to offer any excuse for the delay in asserting the defense, provided ample reason for denying the motion (see, e.g., Fulford v. Baker Perkins, 100 A.D.2d 861; see also, Pegno Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 95 A.D.2d 655, 656, citing Siegel, N Y Prac § 237, at 289).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.