From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mular v. Fredericks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-08355

Argued April 22, 2003.

May 27, 2003.

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which, after a jury trial on the issue of liability, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Baxter Smith, P.C., Jericho, N.Y. (Kimberley A. Carpenter, Sim R. Shapiro, and Robert C. Baxter of counsel), for appellants.

Horowitz, Tannenbaum Silver, P.C., Lake Success, N.Y. (Steven B. Tannenbaum and Vickie R. Silver of counsel), for respondents.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"[W]here an action has long been certified as ready for trial and the moving party had full knowledge of the new cause of action, in the absence of good cause for the failure to move to amend at an earlier date, the motion should be denied on the ground of gross laches alone" (Felix v. Lettre, 204 A.D.2d 679, 680; see also Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467, 468). Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for the failure to move for leave to amend their pleadings at an earlier date and further demonstrated that the defendants were not prejudiced by the amendment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleadings.

The defendants' argument that the Supreme Court should have stricken the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert because he lacked a technical basis for his opinion is unpreserved for appellate review (see Tarlowe v. Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 N.Y.2d 410, 413). In any event, the alleged failure of the plaintiffs' expert to specify the technical basis of his opinion only affects the weight of his testimony (see Tarlowe v. Metropolitan Ski Slopes, supra at 414).

The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mular v. Fredericks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Mular v. Fredericks

Case Details

Full title:TERESA MULAR, ET AL., respondents, v. RICHARD FREDERICKS, ETC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: May 27, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 893

Citing Cases

Messina v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.

The awards for past and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable…

Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi

defendant's application at the conclusion of the trial to conform the pleadings to the proof to include a…