Fucci v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fucci v. Long Island Railroad

126 A.D.2d 700, 511 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41844

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 700 (Fucci v. Long Island Railroad) 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

Fucci v. Long Island Railroad, 126 A.D.2d 700, 511 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated May 27, 1986, which denied their motion to serve amended bills of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Charles Fucci’s accident occurred in 1979, the original bills of particulars were served early in 1981 and depositions were held in July 1981. These depositions put the plaintiffs on notice of the entire factual background of the case. On the eve of trial, over 6\á years after the accident and more than two years after a note of issue was filed, the plaintiffs sought leave to serve amended bills of particulars to add new and different theories of liability based upon the same set of facts. Based on the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bills of particulars (see, Raies v Apple Annie’s Rest., 115 AD2d 599). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated May 27, 1986, which denied their motion to serve amended bills of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Charles Fucci’s accident occurred in 1979, the original bills of particulars were served early in 1981 and depositions were held in July 1981. These depositions put the plaintiffs on notice of the entire factual background of the case. On the eve of trial, over 6\á years after the accident and more than two years after a note of issue was filed, the plaintiffs sought leave to serve amended bills of particulars to add new and different theories of liability based upon the same set of facts. Based on the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bills of particulars (see, Raies v Apple Annie’s Rest., 115 AD2d 599). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 700, 511 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fucci-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack