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
DEFENDANT’S UNSAFE LANE-CHANGE, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Area Zoning Variance and Court Review of Local Variance Proceedings Explained
BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH MOTHER DID NOT APPEAR IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISPENSED WITH THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)
Under Powers Reserved to the Town by an 1818 Law, the Town Cannot Regulate Shoreline Dune Reconstruction and Erosion Control Undertaken by a Village within the Town
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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

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