Spielberger v. Giambalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spielberger v. Giambalvo

207 A.D.2d 877, 616 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9087

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 877 (Spielberger v. Giambalvo) 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

Spielberger v. Giambalvo, 207 A.D.2d 877, 616 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated February 9, 1993, as denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the age of the case, the timing of the motion, and the lack of an acceptable excuse for the delay in raising new categories of injuries, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the plaintiff leave to amend her bill of particulars was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Masterson v New York Hosp., 181 AD2d 451; Pearce v Booth Mem. Hosp., 152 AD2d 553; Simpson v Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Servs., 146 AD2d 769). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated February 9, 1993, as denied her cross motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the age of the case, the timing of the motion, and the lack of an acceptable excuse for the delay in raising new categories of injuries, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the plaintiff leave to amend her bill of particulars was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Masterson v New York Hosp., 181 AD2d 451; Pearce v Booth Mem. Hosp., 152 AD2d 553; Simpson v Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Servs., 146 AD2d 769). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 877, 616 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spielberger-v-giambalvo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack