November 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant Macy's New York, Inc., leave to amend its answer to include the defense of the Workers' Compensation Law since there was no prejudice to the plaintiff attributable to the omission in pleading the defense in the original answer (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Murray v City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400, 405; Cameli v Pace Univ., 131 A.D.2d 419, 420).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.