Navarette v. Alexiades
Decision Date | 15 April 2008 |
Docket Number | 2006-03586.,2006-06372. |
Citation | 855 N.Y.S.2d 260,50 A.D.3d 869,2008 NY Slip Op 03432 |
Parties | JORGE NAVARETTE, Appellant, v. MICHAEL ALEXIADES et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants Michael Alexiades and Hospital for Special Surgery.
The expert witness disclosure required by CPLR 3101 (d) was submitted by the plaintiff on November 10, 2005, more than 8 years after the surgical procedure at issue was performed, more than 6 years after this action was commenced, more than 2 years after the plaintiff served his bills of particulars, and only 11 days before the trial of this action was scheduled to commence. The expert witness disclosure included new theories of liability that were not readily discernable from the allegations set forth in the bills of particulars. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly granted the motion of the defendant Michael Alexiades, and the separate motion of the defendants Barry Waldman, Gary S. Shapiro, and Hospital for Special Surgery to preclude the plaintiff's experts from testifying at trial to the extent of directing the plaintiff to serve new expert responses from the same physicians limited to the allegations claimed in the original bill of particulars (see Durant v Shuren, 33 AD3d 843, 844 [2006]; Lissak v Cerabona, 10 AD3d 308, 309-310 [2004]).
In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his bills of particulars. While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily freely given (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Cohen v Ho, 38 AD3d 705 [2007]), where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging new theories of liability not raised in the complaint or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect prudent, and cautious (see Cohen v Ho, 38 AD3d at 705-706; Lissak v Cerabona, 10 AD3d at 309-310; Rosse-Glickman v Beth Israel Med. Ctr.-Kings Hwy. Div., 309 AD2d 846 [2003]; Kassis v Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn., 258 AD2d 271 [1999]; Volpe v Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 AD2d 398, 398-399 [1995]). Moreover, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Malul v. Azulay
...915 N.Y.S.2d 643 [2d Dept.2011]; Fischer v. RWSP Realty, LLC, 53 A.D.3d 595, 862 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2d Dept.2008]; Navarette v. Alexiades, 50 A.D.3d 869, 855 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2d Dept.2008]; Morris v. Queens Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 49 A.D.3d 827, 854 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2d Dept.2008]; Trataros Constr.,......
-
Delaurentis v. Orange Reg'l Med. Center-Horton Campus, Rebecca K. Calabrese, M.D., Kweon I. Stambaugh, M.D., Haitham Mohammad Nsour, M.D. & Crystal Run Health Care, LLP, Index No: 4875/2009
...a reasonable excuse for the delay has been offered and whether material prejudice will result therefrom. See, Navarette v. Alexiades, 50 A.D.3d 869, 855 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2nd Dept. 2008], citing Cohen v. Ho, 38 A.D.3d 705, 833 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2nd Dept. 2007]; Sampson v. Contillo, 55 A.D.3d 591, 8......
-
Sunrise Harbor Realty Llc v. 35th Sunrise Corp..
...delay in seeking leave to amend, without a reasonable excuse, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom ( Navarette v. Alexiades, 50 A.D.3d 869, 870–871, 855 N.Y.S.2d 260; see [927 N.Y.S.2d 149] American Cleaners, Inc. v. American Intl. Specialty Lines, Ins. Co., 68 A.D.3d 792, 891 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Hill v. Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp.
...set forth in the bills of particulars" (Campos v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 80 A.D.3d 642, 642 [2d Dep't 2011]; see Navarette v. Alexiades, 50 A.D.3d 869, 870 [2d Dep't 2008]; Durant v. Shuren, 33 A.D.3d 843, 844 [2d Dep't 2006]), and are not "a completely new theory of liability" as the AMCH ......