Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

251 A.D.2d 70, 674 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6501

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

DecidedJune 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 70 (Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 251 A.D.2d 70, 674 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about October 8, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars to include a claim for the decedent’s lost earnings as an element of plaintiffs loss of support claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to include a claim premised upon the decedent’s lost earnings (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 958). The amendment, although belated, did not prejudice defendants since, from the inception of the action, defendants were aware that plaintiffs decedent worked and contributed to plaintiffs support. Plaintiff testified to this effect at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and at his deposition (see, March v St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church, 117 AD2d 864). Defendants’ lack of surprise and attendant prejudice respecting this [71]*71claim is additionally evidenced by their deposition of a nonparty witness on the lost income issue and by their service of demands for employment authorizations. Moreover, to the extent, if any, that the late assertion of the claim caused defendants any prejudice, the court adequately mitigated the prejudice by granting defendants leave to conduct further discovery (see, O’Neill v Schlessinger, 86 AD2d 842). Under these circumstances, defendants established no ground for a departure from the rule that, ordinarily, “[l]eave [to amend] shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025 [b]; see also, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23; Cepeda v Hertz Corp., 141 AD2d 394, 395).

We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about October 8, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars to include a claim for the decedent’s lost earnings as an element of plaintiffs loss of support claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to include a claim premised upon the decedent’s lost earnings (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 958). The amendment, although belated, did not prejudice defendants since, from the inception of the action, defendants were aware that plaintiffs decedent worked and contributed to plaintiffs support. Plaintiff testified to this effect at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing and at his deposition (see, March v St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church, 117 AD2d 864). Defendants’ lack of surprise and attendant prejudice respecting this [71]*71claim is additionally evidenced by their deposition of a nonparty witness on the lost income issue and by their service of demands for employment authorizations. Moreover, to the extent, if any, that the late assertion of the claim caused defendants any prejudice, the court adequately mitigated the prejudice by granting defendants leave to conduct further discovery (see, O’Neill v Schlessinger, 86 AD2d 842). Under these circumstances, defendants established no ground for a departure from the rule that, ordinarily, “[l]eave [to amend] shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025 [b]; see also, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23; Cepeda v Hertz Corp., 141 AD2d 394, 395).

We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 70, 674 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sahdala-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack