Summary
In Rasa v. City of New York (95 N.Y.S.2d 291, 292, mod. on other grounds 277 App. Div. 780) which is analogous to the instant situation, except instead of moving to amend the notice of claim plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars setting forth the injuries of a second fall sustained after the notice of claim was filed, the court stated in assuming the factual premise correct, "If so, the defendant tort feasor must answer for any enhancement or aggravation of the injury occasioned by, or a physical impairment due to, the original tort."
Summary of this case from Lieberman v. City of New YorkOpinion
May 8, 1950.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to strike out plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word "denied", and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The supplemental bill of particulars did not change the cause of action ( Wagner v. Mittendorf, 232 N.Y. 481; Overgaard v. Brooklyn Bus Corp., 257 App. Div. 829), and did not constitute an amendment of the notice of claim. Since appellant did not question the service of the supplemental bill without permission of the court, and in view of the determination of the companion appeal ( Rasa v. City of New York, post, p. 780, decided herewith), this order is affirmed as modified. Nolan, P.J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.