Simpson v. Canick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. Canick

59 A.D.2d 738, 398 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13741

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 738 (Simpson v. Canick) 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

Simpson v. Canick, 59 A.D.2d 738, 398 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 27, 1977, which denied her motion to amend her bill of particulars, without prejudice to a renewal thereof, upon proper papers, including a physician’s affidavit showing a causal relation between the negligence complained of and the proposed amendment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to move for renewal is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The injury plaintiff-appellant seeks to add by an amendment to her bill of particulars is a detached retina, which she avers was caused by a blow from an instrument used in treating her postoperatively for the rhytidectomy originally complained of. Such an amendment requires a physician’s affidavit, for it is not an "update * * * of the same injuries”, but a condition which developed subsequently and for which no claim was asserted in the original complaint (Portilla v Boyke, 51 AD2d 539; Maniscalco v Coleman, 32 AD2d 671; London v Moore, 32 AD2d 543; cf. Knorr v Zaretsky, 40 AD2d 523). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Margett and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 27, 1977, which denied her motion to amend her bill of particulars, without prejudice to a renewal thereof, upon proper papers, including a physician’s affidavit showing a causal relation between the negligence complained of and the proposed amendment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to move for renewal is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The injury plaintiff-appellant seeks to add by an amendment to her bill of particulars is a detached retina, which she avers was caused by a blow from an instrument used in treating her postoperatively for the rhytidectomy originally complained of. Such an amendment requires a physician’s affidavit, for it is not an "update * * * of the same injuries”, but a condition which developed subsequently and for which no claim was asserted in the original complaint (Portilla v Boyke, 51 AD2d 539; Maniscalco v Coleman, 32 AD2d 671; London v Moore, 32 AD2d 543; cf. Knorr v Zaretsky, 40 AD2d 523). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Margett and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 738, 398 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-canick-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack