a de novo review. See, e.g., Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 279 Conn. 745, 775, 905 A.2d 623 (2006); Alswanger v. Smego, 257 Conn. 58, 66-67, 776 A.2d 444 (2001); Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 263-65, 654 A.2d 748 (1995); Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 546-49, 590 A.2d 914 (1991); Sharp v. Mitchell, 209 Conn. 59, 72, 546 A.2d 846 (1988). An abuse of discretion standard would be consistent with the general rule that “[t]he trial court has wide discretion in granting or denying amendments before, during, or after trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leone v. Knighton, 196 Conn. 494, 496, 493 A.2d 887 (1985); Antonofsky v. Goldberg, 144 Conn. 594, 597-98, 136 A.2d 338 (1957); see also Bielaska v. Waterford, 196 Conn. 151, 154, 491 A.2d 1071 (1985) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, a de novo standard would
holding that a trial courts decision to permit or to refuse amendments to pleading to conform to the evidence during trial will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion holding that denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint two years after filing his complaint  on the eve of trial when discovery was complete holding that a declaratory judgment entitles a plaintiff to actual attorney fees and costs under mcl 152714 despite the fact that the trial court found it unnecessary to grant an injunction given defendants decision to amend the notice provision after plaintiffs filed the present suit recognizing that a trial judge has a unique vantage point that entitles his decision to great weight on appeal when considering whether to permit plaintiffs to amend complaint to conform with proof at trial in light of nature of amendments and fair notice to defendant holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial