Shillingford v. Eckert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shillingford v. Eckert

73 A.D.2d 601, 422 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 1979·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 18,1979, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve and file an amended bill of particulars. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The amended bill of particulars does not seek to set forth new injuries, but merely expands upon "continuing * * * disabilities” alleged in the original bill of particulars. Thus, plaintiffs had a right to serve this amended bill of particulars (see CPLR 3043, subd [b]; L 1979, ch 590). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 18,1979, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve and file an amended bill of particulars. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The amended bill of particulars does not seek to set forth new injuries, but merely expands upon "continuing * * * disabilities” alleged in the original bill of particulars. Thus, plaintiffs had a right to serve this amended bill of particulars (see CPLR 3043, subd [b]; L 1979, ch 590). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Shillingford v. Eckert, 73 A.D.2d 601, 422 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

73 A.D.2d 601 (Shillingford v. Eckert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related