Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Given the age of the case, the timing of the motion, and the lack of an acceptable excuse for the delay in raising new categories of injuries, we conclude that the Supreme Court's refusal to grant the plaintiff leave to amend her bill of particulars was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Masterson v. New York Hosp., 181 A.D.2d 451; Pearce v. Booth Mem. Hosp., 152 A.D.2d 553; Simpson v. Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Servs., 146 A.D.2d 769). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.