Ambriano v. Bowman

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, (1) the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated January 8, 1997, as granted those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants Dómeme Del Balso, and Danow, McMullan & Panoff, P. C. and William McMullan, which were to sever the third-party action and (2) the third-party defendant Domenic Del Balso and the third-party defendants Danow, McMullan & Panoff, P. C. and William McMullan, separately cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their respective motions which were to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discre*405tion in denying those branches of the respective motions of the third-party defendants which were to dismiss the third-party complaint. Similarly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering a severance of the third-party action. The third-party plaintiff unduly delayed in commencing the third-party action, the parties in the main action have substantially completed their discovery, and would be prejudiced by the delay necessary to allow the third-party defendants to engage in discovery (see, Cusano v Sankyo Seiki Mfg. Co., 184 AD2d 489, 490; Zuckerman v La Guardia Hosp., 125 AD2d 304). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.