Lorincz v. Castellano
| Decision Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021–02136,Index No. 604102/17 |
| Citation | 208 A.D.3d 573,172 N.Y.S.3d 735 |
| Parties | Stephen LORINCZ, appellant, v. Rosario CASTELLANO, et al., respondents (and a third-party action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Law Office of Alan M. Sanders, LLC (Lawrence B. Goodman, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Martyn, Martyn, Smith, Murray & Yong, Mineola, NY (Dennis Connor of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (James P. McCormack, J.), entered March 8, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendants’ motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial regarding injury to his right knee and denied the plaintiff's cross motion, in effect, for leave to amend his bill of particulars.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On March 24, 2017, the plaintiff allegedly was injured on a roadway in Franklin Square when the vehicle he was operating was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant Rosario Castellano and owned by the defendant Roberto Castellano (hereinafter together the defendants). In or about May 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants. Issue was joined by the service of a verified answer dated June 26, 2017. In a bill of particulars dated January 24, 2018, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he sustained injuries to his left knee which required surgery on May 18, 2017. He also alleged injuries to the cervical region of his spine. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff was deposed, at which time he testified regarding the injuries to his left knee and the cervical region of his spine and the treatments he received for those injuries. In late November 2018, the matter was certified ready for trial, and a note of issue was filed on December 7, 2018. In a supplemental bill of particulars dated February 22, 2019, the plaintiff alleged that he underwent surgery to the cervical region of his spine on February 13, 2019. In a second supplemental bill of particulars dated October 21, 2019, the plaintiff alleged that on June 3, 2019, he underwent a left knee arthroplasty. On June 4, 2020, the plaintiff was deposed for a second time in response to his supplemental bill of particulars and second supplemental bill of particulars. Toward the end of the second deposition, the plaintiff testified, for the first time, that his right knee was injured in the subject accident. The plaintiff's disclosure of this new injury came more than three years after the action was commenced and approximately a year and a half after the note of issue was filed and the action certified ready for trial.
In August 2020, the defendants moved to preclude the plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial regarding injury to his right knee. In response, the plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved, in effect, for leave to amend his bill of particulars. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiff's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.
Leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise (see Kirk v. Nahon, 160 A.D.3d 823, 824, 75 N.Y.S.3d 237 ). However, once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified for trial, a party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances (see Skerrett v. LIC Site B2 Owner, LLC, 199 A.D.3d 956, 960, 158 N.Y.S.3d 186 ; Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc., 178 A.D.3d 1015, 1016, 116 N.Y.S.3d 68 ; Anonymous v. Gleason, 175 A.D.3d 614, 617–618, 106 N.Y.S.3d 353 ). Where the motion for leave to amend a pleading is made long after the action has been certified for trial, " ‘judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discrete, circumspect, prudent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph-Felix v. Hersh
...Hersh stated in his affidavit that, after the accident, he "looked all around on the nearby grass and even under plaintiff's SUV but 208 A.D.3d 573 did not see any cone" obstructing the lane as the plaintiff claimed. Hersh's affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to wh......
-
J.D. v. Golden Brick Dev. JP, LLC
..."Leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise" (Lorincz v Castellano, 208 A.D.3d 573, 574; see Achee v Merrick Vil., Inc., 208 A.D.3d 542, 543). "However, once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified for t......