Paganucci v. Ciprut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paganucci v. Ciprut

244 A.D.2d 393, 665 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11285

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 393 (Paganucci v. Ciprut) 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

Paganucci v. Ciprut, 244 A.D.2d 393, 665 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Solomon Ciprut and Maimonides Medical Center appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated January 28, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend their bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“It is well settled that motions for leave to amend bills of particulars are to be liberally granted in the absence of prejudice” (Simino v St. Mary’s Hosp., 107 AD2d 800, 801). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars to add a newly-discovered injury. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, 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 medical malpractice, the defendants Solomon Ciprut and Maimonides Medical Center appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated January 28, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend their bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“It is well settled that motions for leave to amend bills of particulars are to be liberally granted in the absence of prejudice” (Simino v St. Mary’s Hosp., 107 AD2d 800, 801). Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars to add a newly-discovered injury. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 393, 665 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paganucci-v-ciprut-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack