Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiff's attempt on the eve of trial to introduce new facts to support a new theory of recovery and the inexcusable delay in seeking to introduce this new claim after the plaintiff had previously filed its note of issue, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.