Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

Scarangello v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 10, 1985

111 A.D.2d 798; 490 N.Y.S.2d 781; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50043

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Cedano v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Burns v. Kroening (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
DaSilva v. C & E Ventures, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
AAA Viza, Inc. v. Business Payment Systems, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Stransky v. Tannenbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Dent v. Siara Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Myones v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Joseph v. East Penn Trucking Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Gusmerotti v. Martocci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Bielawski v. Edgewater Recreation, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Cannon v. Milone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Moore v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
JIHL Associates v. Frank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Girardi v. Community Hospital of Brooklyn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Rothfarb v. Brookdale Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Courageous Syndicate, Inc. v. People-To-People Sports Committee, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Thomas v. Mat Power, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Lambert v. Katz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Koch v. St. Francis Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a wrongful death claim, claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (McCabe, J.) dated January 3,1984, which denied her motion for an order authorizing the service and filing of an amended bill of particulars.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and appellant’s motion granted.

Motions to amend or supplement a bill of particulars are governed by the same standards as those applying to motions to amend pleadings (Kerlin v Green, 36 AD2d 892; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3042.14a). A party may amend his *799pleadings at any time by permission of the court and leave is to be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]; 22 NYCRR 1200.12 [b]). While a court has broad discretion in deciding whether leave to amend should be granted, it is considered an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to amend in the absence of an inordinate delay and a showing of prejudice to the defendant (see, Pignataro v Balsamo, 108 AD2d 1086; Plattsburgh Distrib. Co. v Hudson Val. Wine Co., 108 AD2d 1043; Cardy v Frey, 86 AD2d 968; see also, Fahey v County of Ontario, 44 NY2d 934).

In the instant case, while there was substantial delay by the claimant in seeking the amendment of her bill of particulars, the State will not be prejudiced by such relief since it was apprised at the outset of the facts and the nature of the claim and claimant’s proposed amendment involves the same transaction and set of facts (see, Plattsburgh Distrib. Co. v Hudson Val. Wine Co., supra, p 1044). In addition, it is noted that contrary to the State’s position, the claimant is not seeking to add causes of action by amending her bill of particulars but rather is seeking to amplify and clarify allegations contained in her claim for damages and original bill of particulars. In view of the facts of the instant case, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the requested relief. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.