Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Al-Khilewi v. Turman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 22, 2011

82 A.D.3d 1021; 919 N.Y.2d 361

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Lorincz v. Castellano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Warshefskie v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Friedman v. 1753 Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Friedman v. 1753 Realty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Ames v. Kamco Supply Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Ames v. Kamco Supply Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

*1022The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars. The amendment added a claim of exacerbation of preexisting disc herniations, and would require the defendant to reorient his defense strategy (see Barrera v City of New York, 265 AD2d 516, 518 [1999]; Markarian v Hundert, 262 AD2d 369, 370 [1999]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his delay in seeking to amend the bill of particulars until over two years after the accident and after the note of issue was filed (see Barrera v City of New York, 265 AD2d at 518; Orros v Yick Ming Yip Realty, 258 AD2d 387 [1999]; Kyong Hi Wohn v County of Suffolk, 237 AD2d 412 [1997]).

The defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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