Dent v. Siara Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dent v. Siara Management, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 1032, 639 N.Y.2d 768, 639 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1032 (Dent v. Siara Management, Inc.) 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

Dent v. Siara Management, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 1032, 639 N.Y.2d 768, 639 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff to amend her bill of particulars. In the absence of prejudice or unfair surprise, leave to amend or supplement a bill of particulars should be freely granted (see, Moore v New York City Tr. Auth., 161 AD2d 505, 506; Scarangello v State of New York, 111 AD2d 798, 798-799). Defendant will not be prejudiced if plaintiffs motion is granted because the proposed amendment is merely an embellishment of the theory of liability contained in the original bill of particulars (see, Moore v New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 506; Scarangello v State of New York, supra, at 799). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. — Amend Bill of Particulars.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff to amend her bill of particulars. In the absence of prejudice or unfair surprise, leave to amend or supplement a bill of particulars should be freely granted (see, Moore v New York City Tr. Auth., 161 AD2d 505, 506; Scarangello v State of New York, 111 AD2d 798, 798-799). Defendant will not be prejudiced if plaintiffs motion is granted because the proposed amendment is merely an embellishment of the theory of liability contained in the original bill of particulars (see, Moore v New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 506; Scarangello v State of New York, supra, at 799). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. — Amend Bill of Particulars.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1032, 639 N.Y.2d 768, 639 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dent-v-siara-management-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack