Opinion
July 1, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.).
Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Motions to amend or supplement a bill of particulars are governed by the same standards as those applying to motions to amend pleadings ( Scarangello v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798). Permission to amend pleadings should be freely given, and the decision to allow or disallow the amendment is committed to the court's discretion ( Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 959). The record reveals no significant prejudice to appellants which would warrant our interference with that discretion ( Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, supra).
Similarly, we find no basis to disturb the discretionary determination of Special Term in granting plaintiffs' motion for a severance ( Nielsen v. Greenman Bros., 100 A.D.2d 578, 579).
We have reviewed appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Brown, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.