[DOWNLOAD] "Dorothy Barry Et Al. v. Niagara Frontier Transit System" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Dorothy Barry Et Al. v. Niagara Frontier Transit System
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 25, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
[38 A.D.2d 878 Page 878] Memorandum: After a jury was drawn and this case was assigned to a Trial Justice for trial, plaintiffs, without prior notice
to defendant and without supporting affidavit or other papers, made an oral motion for permission to serve a supplemental
bill of particulars of the acts of negligence with which they charge defendant, and also asked leave to amend the complaint
accordingly. Plaintiffs sought particularly to specify that "the defendant failed to give the plaintiff a safe place from
which to alight from the bus". Defendant opposed the motion as untimely, and asserted its unreadiness to meet it or the claim.
It further asserted that granting the amendment would be prejudicial. The court granted the motion and a mistrial and directed
that the case be again set down for trial within 60 days. para. The case had been at issue, with a certificate of readiness
filed by plaintiffs, for nearly two years prior to the motion to amend. Applications to amend pleadings, including bills of
particulars (Bernas v. Kepner, 36 A.D.2d 58; Kerlin v. Green, 36 A.D.2d 892), should be freely permitted in the absence of
undue prejudice, upon appropriate papers and terms (CPLR 3025, subd. [b]). Normally, however, a motion to amend a pleading
should be accompanied by a copy of the proposed pleading (Goldner Trucking Corp. v. Stoll Packing Corp., 12 A.D.2d 639; 6
Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 34.29), and where the case has long been certified to be ready for trial, an affidavit
of reasonable excuse for the delay in making the motion and of merit in the proposed amendment should be submitted in support
of the motion (Bernas v. Kepner, supra ; Shea v. Pellicano, 29 A.D.2d 840, app. dsmd., 22 N.Y.2d 753; Miess v. Walkowiak,
27 A.D.2d 797; and see 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3025:22). This is especially so in case of a delayed
motion, wherein the opposing party should have an opportunity to test the excuse for the delay and the merits of the application
and to show prejudice, if any, which would result from granting the motion (Shea v. Pellicano, supra ; Doyle v. Killsen, 28
A.D.2d 969; and see Kerlin v. Green, supra). para. We hold, therefore, that the granting of this motion without notice and
supporting papers was an improvident exercise of discretion; that the order should be reversed and the motion denied without
prejudice to its renewal upon appropriate notice and supporting papers subject, of course, to the imposition of such terms
as Special Term may deem just.