Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Skerencak v. Fischman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 24, 1992Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boomer and Lawton, JJ.

(dissenting in part). We respectfully dissent in part. Plaintiffs motion to amend her bill of particulars to show additional injuries resulting from additional surgeries on her foot and to take the deposition of the doctor who performed the surgeries should have been denied. In support of her motion, plaintiff failed to submit a reasonable excuse for the delay in making the motion 12 years after the action was brought, 6 years after the certificate of readiness was filed, more than 2½ years after additional surgeries were performed, and after the case had been scheduled…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lycett v. Niagara Frontier Transit Systems, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API