Loadholt v. Rams Beer & Soda, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loadholt v. Rams Beer & Soda, Inc.

273 A.D.2d 446, 712 N.Y.S.2d 364, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7374

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 26, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $100,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants argue that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in permitting, inter alia, evidence of injury to the plaintiff’s left knee despite the fact that no such injury was indicated in the bill of particulars. However, “leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise” (Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, [447] 237 AD2d 412). There was no showing of prejudice or surprise, and the determination constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see, Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, supra).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered May 27, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $100,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants argue that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in permitting, inter alia, evidence of injury to the plaintiff’s left knee despite the fact that no such injury was indicated in the bill of particulars. However, “leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise” (Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, [447] 237 AD2d 412). There was no showing of prejudice or surprise, and the determination constituted a provident exercise of discretion (see, Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, supra).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Loadholt v. Rams Beer & Soda, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 446, 712 N.Y.S.2d 364, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 446 (Loadholt v. Rams Beer & Soda, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related