Germana v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Germana v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.

124 A.D.2d 500, 508 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61823

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 500 (Germana v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.) 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

Germana v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., 124 A.D.2d 500, 508 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[501]*501In our view, the amended bills of particulars served after the case was marked off the Trial Calendar — at plaintiffs’ request and during jury selection — alleged new injuries, and thus defendant Chase was entitled to additional discovery with respect to the new claims. (See, O’Neill v Schlessinger, 86 AD2d 842; see also, Portilla v Boyke, 51 AD2d 539.) That discovery, however, should be limited to a further physical examination and deposition as to any new matter alleged. Since Special Term directed that plaintiff’s July 1985 CAT scans be made available to Chase, we see no need for any further discovery along those lines. Chase’s request for reimbursement of its costs with respect to the aborted trial was properly denied. The reason for marking the case off the calendar is not at all clear from the record. Finally, we note that the Justice to whom this case is assigned should set up for an appropriate schedule for the completion of the further deposition and physical examination. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ.

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

[501]*501In our view, the amended bills of particulars served after the case was marked off the Trial Calendar — at plaintiffs’ request and during jury selection — alleged new injuries, and thus defendant Chase was entitled to additional discovery with respect to the new claims. (See, O’Neill v Schlessinger, 86 AD2d 842; see also, Portilla v Boyke, 51 AD2d 539.) That discovery, however, should be limited to a further physical examination and deposition as to any new matter alleged. Since Special Term directed that plaintiff’s July 1985 CAT scans be made available to Chase, we see no need for any further discovery along those lines. Chase’s request for reimbursement of its costs with respect to the aborted trial was properly denied. The reason for marking the case off the calendar is not at all clear from the record. Finally, we note that the Justice to whom this case is assigned should set up for an appropriate schedule for the completion of the further deposition and physical examination. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 500, 508 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/germana-v-chase-manhattan-bank-n-a-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack