“In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom” ( Moore v Franklin Hosp. However “where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging new theories of liability not raised in the complaint or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious” ( Navarette v Alexiades, 50 AD3d 869, 870-871 ).

In such a case, leave may properly be granted “where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant” ( Ortiz v Chendrasekhar, 154 AD3d 867, 869 ). “While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise” ( Kirk v Nahon, 160 AD3d 823, 824 see CPLR 3025 ), “once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary *876 circumstances” ( Schreiber-Cross v State of New York, 57 AD3d 881, 884 see Anonymous v Gleason, 175 AD3d 614, 617-618 ).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege a defect in the doorway floor.

New york cplr amend bill of particulars