From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sagar v. Son

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 20, 1994
208 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 20, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ulster County (Canfield, J.).


In this medical malpractice action, plaintiffs served a supplemental bill of particulars dated December 11, 1992 setting forth additional allegations of negligence against defendant Khun Y. Son (hereinafter defendant) and additional elements of damage, including a claim that plaintiff Agatha Sagar, who asserts a derivative cause of action, experienced severe mental and emotional trauma causing adverse physiological and psychological effects as a result of the injury to plaintiff Daniel Sagar. In view of the fact that a supplemental bill of particulars is limited to "claims of continuing special damages and disabilities" (CPLR 3043 [b]), Supreme Court properly struck the additional allegations of negligence asserted in response to question No. 2 of defendant's demand.

However, we reach a different conclusion with respect to the allegations of additional damages. We agree with plaintiffs that no new cause of action has been stated and even defendant concedes that "certain elements of emotional distress are taken into consideration and are therefore inherent in a derivative claim for loss of consortium on behalf of a spouse in a personal injury action". If, as asserted by defendant, the amendment is thus unnecessary, no prejudice could possibly result. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiffs' cross motion with respect to the additional allegations of damage. Defendant's demand for further discovery in the event of our reversal or modification of Supreme Court's order is a matter that should be addressed to Supreme Court.

Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted defendant Khun Y. Son's motion and denied plaintiffs' cross motion with regard to the supplemental responses to question Nos. 10 and 12 of said defendant's demand for a bill of particulars; motion denied and cross motion granted with regard to said responses; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

Sagar v. Son

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 20, 1994
208 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Sagar v. Son

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL SAGAR et al., Appellants, v. KHUN Y. SON et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 20, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 409

Citing Cases

Kraycar v. Monahan

It is well settled that a supplemental bill of particulars may be used for purposes of updating "claims of…

In re Plitnick-Sullivan

Hedlund is again clearly distinguishable because this claim has not been set down for trial and there is no…