Zito v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zito v. City of New York

72 A.D.3d 451, 897 N.Y.S.2d 632

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

DecidedApril 6, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 451 (Zito v. City of New York) 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

Zito v. City of New York, 72 A.D.3d 451, 897 N.Y.S.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 14, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend and supplement his bill of particulars and granted defendant City of New York’s motion to preclude plaintiffs expert from testifying, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[452]*452The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend and supplement his bill of particulars to incorporate a new theory of liability after the filing of the note of issue and absent a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving (Lupo v Pro Foods, LLC, 68 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]). In light of the foregoing, the court properly precluded plaintiffs expert from testifying as to the new theory. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 14, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend and supplement his bill of particulars and granted defendant City of New York’s motion to preclude plaintiffs expert from testifying, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[452]*452The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend and supplement his bill of particulars to incorporate a new theory of liability after the filing of the note of issue and absent a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving (Lupo v Pro Foods, LLC, 68 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]). In light of the foregoing, the court properly precluded plaintiffs expert from testifying as to the new theory. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 451, 897 N.Y.S.2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zito-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack