Summary
In Adams, plaintiff sought leave to amend her bill of particulars to add an additional ground of negligence, namely the placing of stitches, and in citing McCaskey, the Appellate Division found the trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment as it allowed plaintiff to further particularize her injury, and as the information was available since discovery, there could be no claim of prejudice or surprise.
Summary of this case from Sinvany v. The Metro. Transit Auth.Opinion
February 22, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff sought leave to amend her bill of particulars to further allege that the defendants had been negligent in "placing a stitch in [her] sigmoid colon during a surgical procedure" and that as a result of the defendants' malpractice she sustained "severe emotional problems manifesting themselves in depressive symptomatology and suicide ideation".
It is well settled that leave to amend or supplement pleadings should be freely granted unless the amendment sought is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law, or unless prejudice and surprise directly result from the delay in seeking the amendment ( see, McCaskey, Davies Assocs. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755; East Patchogue Contr. Co. v. Majesty Sec. Corp., 181 A.D.2d 714; Nissenbaum v. Ferazzoli, 171 A.D.2d 654). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to amend her bill of particulars to allege negligent placement of the stitch. The medical information which serves as the basis for that allegation has been freely available to the defendants since the time of discovery, and there can be no real claim of prejudice or surprise ( see, Drechsel v. Loblaw, Inc., 64 A.D.2d 1022). Furthermore, the plaintiff was properly permitted to amend her bill of particulars to allege more specifically the precise nature of her claimed emotional pain, suffering, and distress ( see, Scheuerman v. Health Hosps. Corp., 243 A.D.2d 553; Fick v. LaGuardia Med. Group, 208 A.D.2d 800).
Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.