Corwin v. Town of Babylon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corwin v. Town of Babylon

137 A.D.2d 579, 524 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1011

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 579 (Corwin v. Town of Babylon) 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

Corwin v. Town of Babylon, 137 A.D.2d 579, 524 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated May 28, 1987, which granted the motion of the plaintiff Jeffrey Corwin for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the difficulty in ascertaining the full extent of the plaintiff Jeffrey Corwin’s injuries, the expeditious manner in which leave to serve an amended bill of particulars was sought, and the right to further discovery which has been afforded to the defendants, we conclude that the Supreme [580]*580Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars (see generally, Kurnitz v Croft, 91 AD2d 972; Best v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD2d 579). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated May 28, 1987, which granted the motion of the plaintiff Jeffrey Corwin for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the difficulty in ascertaining the full extent of the plaintiff Jeffrey Corwin’s injuries, the expeditious manner in which leave to serve an amended bill of particulars was sought, and the right to further discovery which has been afforded to the defendants, we conclude that the Supreme [580]*580Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars (see generally, Kurnitz v Croft, 91 AD2d 972; Best v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD2d 579). Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 579, 524 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corwin-v-town-of-babylon-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack