You are here: / / MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY...
, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars to add a new theory of liability should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. The amendment was based upon plaintiffs’ expert’s disclosures and the motion to amend was made shortly after the expert raised the issue:

​

While leave to amend a bill of particulars is generally freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise (see CPLR 3025[b]), where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging a new theory of liability not raised in the claim or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and “judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious”… . In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom … . Here, the delay would not have been prejudicial since the plaintiffs’ amendment sought to include a theory of causation of the decedent’s death raised in the defendants’ expert disclosures. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not delay in seeking the amendment after receiving the defendants’ expert disclosures, and the defendants were permitted further discovery … . Moore v Franklin Hosp. Med. Center-North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 08263, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025[b] (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described
Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted
DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CONDITIONAL SEALING OF THE RECORDS OF DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS PURSUANT TO CPL 160.58 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF DWAI WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE SEALING STATUTE, THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM WHICH DEFENDANT COMPLETED MET THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEALING STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A SINGLE INCIDENT OF ALLEGED EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (GRABBING THE CHILD’S ARM AND SQUEEZING TIGHTLY) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; A NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff’s Action—Defendant’s Alleged Default Irrelevant
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (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

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED... SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID...