
    Pawling Savings Bank, Respondent, v VSA Bedell Road Associates, Defendant, and Harold Weber et al., Appellants.
    [624 NYS2d 921]
   —In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Harold Weber and Robert Nilsson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered July 15, 1993, as denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated August 10, 1993, as, resettled the order entered July 15, 1993.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 15, 1993 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the resettled order dated August 10, 1993; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 10, 1993 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

A motion to amend a pleading is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose determination will not lightly be set aside (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957; F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533). Under the circumstances of this case, there is no reason to set aside the trial court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer (see, Courageous Syndicate v People-To-People Sports Comm., 141 AD2d 599; cf., Noanjo Clothing v L & M Kids Fashions, 207 AD2d 436). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.  