From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Drwal v. 101 Limted Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 4, 2000
271 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 4, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Michael S. Levine, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Michael V. DiMartini, for Defendants-Appellants.

WILLIAMS, J.P., ELLERIN, RUBIN, SAXE, JJ.


Plaintiff, a window washer who claims that he was struck in the neck and back by a defective scaffold, served an amended bill of particulars alleging that the accident occurred one week earlier than originally alleged. Defendants, the owner and managing agent of the building where the alleged accident occurred, argue that the amendment is a new claim of which the original pleadings did not give notice within the meaning of CPLR 203(f), and that the action should therefore be dismissed as time-barred. The argument is without merit. No new claim is being made, and defendants do not show any prejudice as a result of plaintiff's correction of a factual detail. Defendants have had ample opportunity to investigate whether the alleged accident in fact occurred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Drwal v. 101 Limted Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 4, 2000
271 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Drwal v. 101 Limted Partnership

Case Details

Full title:Dominic J. Drwal, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 101 Limited Partnership, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 4, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 385

Citing Cases

First Sealord Surety, Inc. v. Vesta 24 LLC

action was one to foreclose on a mechanic's lien filed on May 22, 2006. We reject the motion court's holding…

Issing v. Madison Square

Plaintiffs properly amended their bill of particulars, without leave of the court (CPLR 3042 [b]), so as to…