Straut v. Fox

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars. Plaintiff’s attorney promptly moved to amend the bill of particulars upon learning of new evidence supporting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Such motion practice is permissible when a party is ignorant of the information that necessitated the amendment (Palmer v New York City Tr. Auth., 33 AD2d 119; see, also, Katz-Waisman Weber Strauss v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Center, 36 AD2d…