Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc.

205 A.D.2d 525, 613 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991

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

DecidedJune 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 525 (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., 205 A.D.2d 525, 613 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence and products liability, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.) dated September 30, 1992, as denied their motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars alleging injuries sustained by the plaintiff Scott Thomas with psychological/psychiatric components.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs contend that the psychological injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Scott Thomas were merely the "logical sequelae” of the physical injuries recited in the earlier bill of particulars, and that, accordingly, they were not required to seek leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 3042 so as to include the psychological injuries in the bill of particulars. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Scirica, 170 AD2d 448), and in any event, is without merit (cf., Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84).

Moreover, in view of the plaintiffs’ failure to present a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in seeking to amend the bill of particulars, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the Supreme Court’s denial of their motion (see, Scott v General Motors Corp., 202 AD2d 570).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart 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 negligence and products liability, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.) dated September 30, 1992, as denied their motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars alleging injuries sustained by the plaintiff Scott Thomas with psychological/psychiatric components.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs contend that the psychological injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Scott Thomas were merely the "logical sequelae” of the physical injuries recited in the earlier bill of particulars, and that, accordingly, they were not required to seek leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 3042 so as to include the psychological injuries in the bill of particulars. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Scirica, 170 AD2d 448), and in any event, is without merit (cf., Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84).

Moreover, in view of the plaintiffs’ failure to present a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in seeking to amend the bill of particulars, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the Supreme Court’s denial of their motion (see, Scott v General Motors Corp., 202 AD2d 570).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 525, 613 N.Y.S.2d 55, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-mat-power-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack