You are here: / / MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS...

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A GOOD EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION HAD MERIT, DID NOT PRESENT ANY NEW THEORIES AND SOUGHT TO NARROW THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars should have been granted, even though the motion was made after the note of issue was filed and there was no good excuse for the delay:

… “[L]eave to amend a bill of particulars may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant” … . Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine … .

Here, despite their unreasonable and unexplained delay in seeking leave to amend their bill of particulars and interrogatory responses, the plaintiffs did not seek to assert any new theory of liability, but rather, sought to narrow a theory previously asserted. Specifically, whereas the plaintiffs had previously alleged violation of “all provisions of the [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations] Parts 300 to 399,” their proposed amendment sought to narrow this allegation to specify a violation of 49 CFR 392.2 as a result of a violation of Tuckahoe Village Code § 21-33.1. Since the proposed amendment was meritorious and sought to narrow the issues before the Supreme Court, the court should have granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend their bill of particulars and interrogatory responses as requested … . Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09252, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
A Phone Call, Even When Reduced to Writing, Does Not Satisfy the City’s “Written Notice of a Defect” Requirement
A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND OTHER CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISMISSAL WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ OWN MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY AN UNSIGNED LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
Article 81 Guardianship Hearing Should Not Have Been Held in the Absence of the Alleged Incapacitated Person; Counsel Should Have Been Appointed for the Alleged Incapacitated Person

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

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER... REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING...