Narrative Opinion Summary
In a medical malpractice case, defendants Solomon Ciprut and Maimonides Medical Center appealed a Supreme Court, Kings County order dated January 28, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs' cross motion to amend their bill of particulars. The appellate court affirmed the order with costs. It emphasized that amendments to bills of particulars are generally permitted unless they cause prejudice. Citing precedent (Simino v St. Mary’s Hosp.), the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the plaintiffs to add a newly-discovered injury to their claims. Justices Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter, and Krausman concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendments to Bills of Particularssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court permitted the amendment of the plaintiffs' bill of particulars to include a newly-discovered injury, finding no abuse of discretion and no prejudice to the defendants.
Reasoning: It emphasized that amendments to bills of particulars are generally permitted unless they cause prejudice.
Discretion of the Court in Allowing Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars, aligning with precedent and ensuring fairness in the proceeding.
Reasoning: Citing precedent (Simino v St. Mary’s Hosp.), the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the plaintiffs to add a newly-discovered injury to their claims.