Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc.

129 A.D.2d 697, 514 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45385

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

DecidedApril 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.2d 697 (Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc.) 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

Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 697, 514 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Universal Reselite, Inc. appeals from an [698]*698order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Goldstein, J.), dated April 9, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the totality of the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to allow the plaintiffs to serve an amended bill of particulars. Although the plaintiffs significantly delayed in moving for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars, there was no real showing of prejudice to the defendant Universal Reselite, Inc. (see, Scarangello v State of New York, 111 AD2d 798). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendant Universal Reselite, Inc. appeals from an [698]*698order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Goldstein, J.), dated April 9, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the totality of the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to allow the plaintiffs to serve an amended bill of particulars. Although the plaintiffs significantly delayed in moving for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars, there was no real showing of prejudice to the defendant Universal Reselite, Inc. (see, Scarangello v State of New York, 111 AD2d 798). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 697, 514 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-mat-power-inc-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack