AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

RICHARD COSSART, Respondent, v. INGEBORD H. FREDENBURGH, Doing Business as INGE'S DINER, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. L B PRODUCTS CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 1, 1975 in Albany County, which allowed plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The granting of a motion to amend a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the court (Hrusko v Public Serv. Coordinated Tr. Corp., 40 A.D.2d 659). In the absence of a showing of prejudice, as is the situation here, leave to amend or supplement a bill of particulars should be freely granted (CPLR 3025, subd [b]; Maloney v Union Free School Dist. No. 7, 46 A.D.2d 789). The plaintiff does not seek to allege a new theory of liability but simply an aggravation of a pre-existing condition and the permanency of a condition previously not thought to be permanent. The original bill of particulars gave notice that the injuries complained of were superimposed upon the pre-existing condition. It is noted that the order appealed from provided that, at the option or request of defendant, the plaintiff shall submit to a physical examination and a further examination before trial. Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Herlihy, P.J., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COSSART v. FREDENBURGH
(Dec 18, 1975)