Cossart v. Predenburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cossart v. Predenburgh

50 A.D.2d 993, 376 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 993 (Cossart v. Predenburgh) 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

Cossart v. Predenburgh, 50 A.D.2d 993, 376 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 1, 1975 in Albany County, which allowed plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The granting of a motion to amend a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the court (Hrusko v Public Serv. Coordinated Tr. Corp., 40 AD2d 659). In the absence of a showing of prejudice, as is the situation here, leave to amend or supplement a bill of particulars should be freely granted (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Maloney v Union Free School Dist. No. 7, 46 AD2d 789). The plaintiff does not seek to allege a new theory of liability but simply an aggravation of a pre-existing condition and the permanency of a condition previously not thought to be permanent. The original bill of particulars gave notice that the injuries complained of were superimposed upon the pre-existing condition. It is noted that the order appealed from provided that, at the option or request of defendant, the plaintiff shall submit to a physical examination and a further examination before trial. Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Herlihy, P. J., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 1, 1975 in Albany County, which allowed plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The granting of a motion to amend a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the court (Hrusko v Public Serv. Coordinated Tr. Corp., 40 AD2d 659). In the absence of a showing of prejudice, as is the situation here, leave to amend or supplement a bill of particulars should be freely granted (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Maloney v Union Free School Dist. No. 7, 46 AD2d 789). The plaintiff does not seek to allege a new theory of liability but simply an aggravation of a pre-existing condition and the permanency of a condition previously not thought to be permanent. The original bill of particulars gave notice that the injuries complained of were superimposed upon the pre-existing condition. It is noted that the order appealed from provided that, at the option or request of defendant, the plaintiff shall submit to a physical examination and a further examination before trial. Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Herlihy, P. J., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 993, 376 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cossart-v-predenburgh-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack