Trader v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trader v. State

259 A.D.2d 951, 687 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1999

DocketClaim No. 89885

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 951 (Trader v. State) 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

Trader v. State, 259 A.D.2d 951, 687 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Although the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion of defendant to strike allegations of negligent training, supervision and education of its employees from claimants’ supplemental bill of particulars on the ground that a new theory of liability was being asserted, we exercise our discretion to grant claimants’ alternative request to amend the amended notice of claim to add that theory. The new theory “is based upon the same facts as alleged in the original [notice of claim]” (Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip., 239 AD2d 742, 743). Although discovery has been completed, “[m]erely because the amendment may require defendant [ ] to conduct additional discovery does not, alone, constitute sufficient grounds to justify denial” of claimants’ request (Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip., supra, at 743). We therefore modify the order by granting claimants’ alternative request to amend the amended notice of claim. (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Corbett, Jr., J. — Amend Pleading.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Although the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion of defendant to strike allegations of negligent training, supervision and education of its employees from claimants’ supplemental bill of particulars on the ground that a new theory of liability was being asserted, we exercise our discretion to grant claimants’ alternative request to amend the amended notice of claim to add that theory. The new theory “is based upon the same facts as alleged in the original [notice of claim]” (Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip., 239 AD2d 742, 743). Although discovery has been completed, “[m]erely because the amendment may require defendant [ ] to conduct additional discovery does not, alone, constitute sufficient grounds to justify denial” of claimants’ request (Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip., supra, at 743). We therefore modify the order by granting claimants’ alternative request to amend the amended notice of claim. (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, Corbett, Jr., J. — Amend Pleading.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 951, 687 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trader-v-state-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack