Ackerman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackerman v. City of New York

67 A.D.2d 689, 412 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 689 (Ackerman v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackerman v. City of New York, 67 A.D.2d 689, 412 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In actions to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 18, 1978, which denied her motion for leave to amend her bill of particulars in order to set forth additional injuries not known at the time the original bill of particulars was served and to update her special damages. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s time to serve an amended bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. It was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny plaintiff’s motion. Dr. Kinzel’s affidavit, prima facie, established a sufficient causal connection between the incident in October, 1974 and plaintiff’s subsequent myocardial infarction. Although a statement of readiness had been filed, the myocardial infarction was not suffered until thereafter and defendants were promptly notified of Dr. Kinzel’s findings. Accordingly, the motion should have been granted. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In actions to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 18, 1978, which denied her motion for leave to amend her bill of particulars in order to set forth additional injuries not known at the time the original bill of particulars was served and to update her special damages. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff’s time to serve an amended bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. It was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny plaintiff’s motion. Dr. Kinzel’s affidavit, prima facie, established a sufficient causal connection between the incident in October, 1974 and plaintiff’s subsequent myocardial infarction. Although a statement of readiness had been filed, the myocardial infarction was not suffered until thereafter and defendants were promptly notified of Dr. Kinzel’s findings. Accordingly, the motion should have been granted. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 689, 412 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1979.