Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1998 |
| Citation | 674 N.Y.S.2d 297,251 A.D.2d 70 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5394 Manuel SAHDALA, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent. v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Matthew Gaier, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Mordecai Newman and Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., for Defendants-Appellants.
Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, WILLIAMS, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about October 8, 1997, which granted plaintiff's motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars to include a claim for the decedent's lost earnings as an element of plaintiff's loss of support claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to include a claim premised upon the decedent's lost earnings (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 957, 958, 471 N.Y.S.2d 55, 459 N.E.2d 164). The amendment, although belated, did not prejudice defendants since, from the inception of the action, defendants were aware that plaintiff's decedent worked and contributed to plaintiff's support. Plaintiff testified to this effect at the General Municipal Law 50-h hearing and at his deposition (see, March v. St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church, 117 A.D.2d 864, 498 N.Y.S.2d 578). Defendants' lack of surprise and attendant prejudice respecting this claim is additionally evidenced by their deposition of a nonparty witness on the lost income issue and by their service of demands for employment authorizations. Moreover, to the extent, if any, that the late assertion of the claim caused defendants any prejudice, the court adequately mitigated the prejudice by granting defendants leave to conduct further discovery (see, O'Neill v. Schlessinger, 86 A.D.2d 842, 447 N.Y.S.2d 453). Under these circumstances, defendants established no ground for a departure from the rule that, ordinarily, "leave [to amend] shall be freely given" (CPLR 3025[b]; see also, Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, 444 N.Y.S.2d 571, 429 N.E.2d 90; Cepeda v. Hertz Corp., 141 A.D.2d 394, 395, 529 N.Y.S.2d 760).
We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menkes v. Beth Abraham Health Servs.
...114, 115 (1st Dep't 2000). See Jankie-Alli v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 262 A.D.2d 188 (1st Dep't 1999); Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 70 (1st Dep't 1998). Likewise, plaintiff's claims of regulatory violations are based on the factual allegations in the original bi......
-
Hernandez v. Seadyck Realty Co.
...he should be granted an opportunity to do so, as there is no prejudice to defendant (see Sahdala v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 70, 674 N.Y.S.2d 297 [1st Dept.1998]...
-
Jelic v. Mirasol
...had a full opportunity to conduct disclosure on the newly-alleged injuries is easily curable. See, e.g., Sahdala v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 70 (1st Dept. 1998); Cepeda v. Hertz, 141 A.D.2d 394 (1st Dept. 1988); Kurnitz v. Croft, 91 A.D.2d 972 (2d Dept. 1983). This ......
-
Lelek v. Verizon New York, 2007 NY Slip Op 31578(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 5/31/2007)
...has been applied to the amendment of bills of particulars, in the absence of prejudice or surprise. See, Sandala v, New York City Health Hospitals Corp., 251 A.D.2d 70 (1st Dep't 1998). Thus, although defendants correctly note that plaintiff's original Bill of Particulars failed to allege a......