You are here: / / Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny...
,

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late Motion to Amend Bill of Particulars

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a medical malpractice action, finding that the conditional granting of defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from submitting evidence of neurological injuries and the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars constituted abuse of discretion.  The Second Department determined plaintiffs did not “willfully and contumaciously fail to appear for a neuropsychological examination” by the defendants’ doctor and the amendment of the bill of particulars would not prejudice the defendants.  The court noted that the plaintiffs’ request to audiotape the neurophsychological examination was not supported by “special and unusual circumstances” warranting it:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure, including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . However, “before a court invokes the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or even of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the hospital defendants’ motion which was to conditionally preclude the plaintiffs from introducing evidence of the injured plaintiff’s neurological injuries, since there was no clear showing that the injured plaintiff had willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for a neuropsychological examination. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the conduct of the plaintiffs or their attorney warranted the imposition of sanctions. * * *

“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'” … . Where there is an unreasonable delay in seeking leave to amend, without excuse, and the motion for leave to amend is made close to or on the eve of trial, it is an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the relief … . However, lateness alone is “not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … . In this case, the proposed amendment was first sought in September 2011. Since the hospital defendants and Roca were aware of the plaintiffs’ allegations well before the eve of trial, they were not prejudiced by the amendment. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars … . Dimouslas v Roca, 2014 NY Slip Op 06170, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL GYM TEACHER WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Wrong Party Name Could Not Be Remedied by Service of an Amended Summons and Complaint—Supreme Court Could Not Grant Motion to Serve Amended Pleadings Because the Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over the Misnamed Party (Misnamed Party Never Served)—Relation Back Doctrine Did Not Apply
Insufficient Proof of an Agreement to Assume a Mortgage at the Time Deed Transferred
THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS WAS NOT LAID AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION, THE OTHER DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

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

Failure to Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements Required Dismissal of Action... Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion...