Straut v. Fox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Straut v. Fox

93 A.D.2d 979, 461 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17887

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

DecidedApril 1, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 979 (Straut v. Fox) 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

Straut v. Fox, 93 A.D.2d 979, 461 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars. Plaintiff’s attorney promptly moved to amend the bill of particulars upon learning of new evidence supporting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Such motion practice is permissible when a party is ignorant of the information that necessitated the amendment (Palmer v New York City Tr. Auth., 33 AD2d 119; see, also, Katz-Waisman Weber Strauss v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Center, 36 AD2d 807). Motions to amend bills of particulars are to be liberally granted in the absence of prejudice (Havas v Victory Paper Stock Co., 77 AD2d 698, 699; cf. Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934). Defendant may conduct a further medical examination of the plaintiff if deemed necessary. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Stiles, J. — amend bill of particulars.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars. Plaintiff’s attorney promptly moved to amend the bill of particulars upon learning of new evidence supporting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Such motion practice is permissible when a party is ignorant of the information that necessitated the amendment (Palmer v New York City Tr. Auth., 33 AD2d 119; see, also, Katz-Waisman Weber Strauss v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Center, 36 AD2d 807). Motions to amend bills of particulars are to be liberally granted in the absence of prejudice (Havas v Victory Paper Stock Co., 77 AD2d 698, 699; cf. Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934). Defendant may conduct a further medical examination of the plaintiff if deemed necessary. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Stiles, J. — amend bill of particulars.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 979, 461 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/straut-v-fox-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack