You are here: / / Amendment of Bill of Particulars After Four Years of Discovery Should Not...

Amendment of Bill of Particulars After Four Years of Discovery Should Not Have Been Allowed

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have allowed plaintiff to amend his bill of particulars to include aggravation of a preexisting condition because the request came after four years of discovery during which plaintiff had affirmatively stated his injuries did not include aggravation of preexisting condition:

Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted “unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” (…see CPLR 3025[b]…). “However, where the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent, and cautious’” … .Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that, during four years of discovery, the plaintiff affirmatively maintained that his injuries did not include the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, as well as the lateness of his request for leave to amend, the prejudice to the defendants, and the lack of any reasonable excuse for the delay, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars … .  Rodgers v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 05623, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

You might also like
Dismissal Under Doctrine of Res Judicata Affirmed
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​
KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A SUCCESSIVE AND LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Out-of Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Law of the Case” Doctrine Did Not Apply—Dismissal of Affirmative... Work Accident and Auto Accident Cases Should Be Consolidated Because Plaintiff...