Binder v. Skilbred

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Binder v. Skilbred

295 A.D.2d 382, 743 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5944

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 382 (Binder v. Skilbred) 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

Binder v. Skilbred, 295 A.D.2d 382, 743 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 2, 2001, inter alia, which granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars dated February 20, 2001, deemed that bill of particulars served as of the entry date of the order appealed from, and denied as academic the defendant’s motion to strike an amended bill of particulars dated January 10, 2001, previously served without leave of the court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to serve an amended bill of particulars to include additional facts in support of the theory of negligence set forth in the prior pleadings (see Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 2, 2001, inter alia, which granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars dated February 20, 2001, deemed that bill of particulars served as of the entry date of the order appealed from, and denied as academic the defendant’s motion to strike an amended bill of particulars dated January 10, 2001, previously served without leave of the court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to serve an amended bill of particulars to include additional facts in support of the theory of negligence set forth in the prior pleadings (see Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Goldstein and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 382, 743 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binder-v-skilbred-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack