Kassis v. Teachers' Insurance & Annuity Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kassis v. Teachers' Insurance & Annuity Ass'n

298 A.D.2d 223, 748 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9725

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 223 (Kassis v. Teachers' Insurance & Annuity Ass'n) 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

Kassis v. Teachers' Insurance & Annuity Ass'n, 298 A.D.2d 223, 748 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 23, 2002, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement their bill of particulars and amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause by $502,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The grant of plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their bill of particulars and amend their complaint to reflect the estimated costs for the repair of the subject premises, allegedly damaged by defendants’ negligent demolition of their adjacent building, constituted a proper exercise of discretion. The proposed supplemental bill of particulars merely exposes defendants to greater liability; it does not advance a new legal theory (see Abdelnabi v New York City Tr. Auth., 273 AD2d 114, 115). Any [224]*224potential for prejudice was cured by the court’s direction permitting defendants’ expert to reinspect the premises. Further deposition of the lay plaintiff is not necessary in view of the technical expertise demonstrated in the supplemental bill of particulars and the fact that defendants previously deposed him over 13 days. Since plaintiffs offer no new theories, defendants can hardly complain that they are now being deprived of further meaningful discovery.

We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered April 23, 2002, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement their bill of particulars and amend the complaint to increase the ad damnum clause by $502,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The grant of plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their bill of particulars and amend their complaint to reflect the estimated costs for the repair of the subject premises, allegedly damaged by defendants’ negligent demolition of their adjacent building, constituted a proper exercise of discretion. The proposed supplemental bill of particulars merely exposes defendants to greater liability; it does not advance a new legal theory (see Abdelnabi v New York City Tr. Auth., 273 AD2d 114, 115). Any [224]*224potential for prejudice was cured by the court’s direction permitting defendants’ expert to reinspect the premises. Further deposition of the lay plaintiff is not necessary in view of the technical expertise demonstrated in the supplemental bill of particulars and the fact that defendants previously deposed him over 13 days. Since plaintiffs offer no new theories, defendants can hardly complain that they are now being deprived of further meaningful discovery.

We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 223, 748 N.Y.S.2d 23, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kassis-v-teachers-insurance-annuity-assn-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack