From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hillenbrand v. 3801 Review Place, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1979
72 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

October 15, 1979


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 6, 1978, which denied their motion to increase the ad damnum clause of the complaint. Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly by respondents and motion granted. Since plaintiffs' motion to amend is based solely upon an update of original injuries, compliance with the affidavit requirement of London v Moore ( 32 A.D.2d 543) was unnecessary (see Church v Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn Queens, 52 A.D.2d 898, 899). Hence, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion on the ground that the affidavit by plaintiffs' physician failed to establish a causal link between the alleged injury and the accident. Additionally the delay in making the instant motion is not per se an acceptable ground for the denial, in view of the fact that respondents have failed to demonstrate how they would suffer actual prejudice at trial (see Calautti v National Transp. Co., 10 A.D.2d 955; see, also, Finn v Crystal Beach Tr. Co., 55 A.D.2d 1001). Damiani, J.P., O'Connor, Lazer and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hillenbrand v. 3801 Review Place, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 1979
72 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Hillenbrand v. 3801 Review Place, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN HILLENBRAND et al., Appellants, v. 3801 REVIEW PLACE, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 15, 1979

Citations

72 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Style Mgmt. Assocs. Corp.

"In general, motions for leave to amend a pleading should be granted unless the proposed amendment is…

Strobel v. Dailey

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The trend of this…