Bielawski v. Edgewater Recreation, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: We conclude that it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bills of particulars and to preclude the use of testimony by plaintiffs’ expert at trial (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; Moore v New York City Tr. Auth., 161 AD2d 505; Scarangello v State of New York, 111 AD2d 798). When no prejudice or unfair surprise exists, leave to amend pleadings, or to supplement a bill of particulars, should be liberally granted. Defendants will sustain no actual prejudice by the proposed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scarangello v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Risucci v. HomayoonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Bernas v. KepnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
- Moore v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Maasch v. Edward Corning Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Omni Group Farms, Inc. v. County of CayugaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993