Opinion
February 8, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In light of the difficulty in ascertaining the full extent of the plaintiff Jeffrey Corwin's injuries, the expeditious manner in which leave to serve an amended bill of particulars was sought, and the right to further discovery which has been afforded to the defendants, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars (see generally, Kurnitz v Croft, 91 A.D.2d 972; Best v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 A.D.2d 579). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.