Griffin v. New York City Transit Authority

1 A.D.3d 141, 767 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11647
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 141 (Griffin v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Griffin v. New York City Transit Authority, 1 A.D.3d 141, 767 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[142]*142While leave to amend a pleading is freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying such leave since plaintiff failed to support her motion with “competent medical proof of the causal connection between the [accident] and the death of the original plaintiff’ (McGuire v Small, 129 AD2d 429 [1987]). Plaintiff’s decedent sustained.injuries when he fell from a ladder. He died approximately 21l% years later, and esophageal cancer was listed as the sole cause of his death. Plaintiffs conclusory medical affidavit was insufficient to establish a causal connection between the decedent’s cancer and his injuries, or to establish that the injuries played a role in hastening his death. Although plaintiffs expert’s affidavit set forth an alleged chain of events, it explained the cause-effect relationships between the links of the chain in conclusory terms and failed to indicate what medical records were reviewed. Furthermore, the expert did not set forth his credentials.

In addition, defendants would be prejudiced by the addition of the wrongful death claim because they had not been previously made aware of any potential cancer-related claim by way of a bill of particulars or otherwise and because, under the circumstances, they were unable to conduct any meaningful investigation in order to prepare adequate defenses. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Related

Jones v. Penn Cent. Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 30366(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Imperati v. Lee
132 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Cruz v. Brown
129 A.D.3d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Lucido v. Mancuso
49 A.D.3d 220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rubick v. Atkins
New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004
Rubick v. Atkins
2 Misc. 3d 796 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.3d 141, 767 N.Y.S.2d 15, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.