From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laskaris v. Hogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 1970
35 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

November 5, 1970


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 10, 1970 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiffs' motion to increase the ad damnum clauses in the complaint in respect to the personal injury causes of action asserted by plaintiffs Laskaris and Papadopoulos and to serve a supplemental bill of particulars regarding the causes of all four plaintiffs. Arising out of a June, 1968 automobile accident, the action was placed on the Trial Calendar in October of that year. Appellants urge that the moving papers are insufficient as a matter of law, particularly because of the absence of a medical affidavit. Considerable liberality has been extended in permitting amendment of the amount of damages sought by plaintiffs in personal injury actions (CPLR 3025; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3017.05), the matter being within the sound discretion of the court ( Soulier v. Harrison, 21 A.D.2d 725). The statement in movants' affidavit that defendants' attorney was made aware of the additional damage items and that subsequently physical examinations were arranged, or are being arranged, is not disputed. So, too, the amendment or supplementing of bill of particulars is addressed to a court's discretion (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3041.21). Besides the lack of controversy as to information furnished and the arrangement for physicals, no prejudice has been demonstrated or claimed. Generally, the proffered supplemental bill furnishes particulars as to expenses incurred and injuries manifested subsequent to the original bill. The injuries related therein are referrable to the same body parts as mentioned in the earlier document. It is well to note, however, that, in the interests of orderly procedure, the designation of the items of an amended or supplemental bill, as well as those of the original, should correspond with that of the demand. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Laskaris v. Hogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 1970
35 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Laskaris v. Hogan

Case Details

Full title:TRIFON LASKARIS et al., Respondents, v. BRIAN HOGAN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 5, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Watrous v. Harris

By cross moving for permission to serve a supplemental bill of particulars, plaintiffs' attorney has…

Schultz v. Ellenbogen

We start with the directive contained in the last sentence of CPLR 3025 (subd. [b]), which instructs courts…