From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griffin v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 6, 2003
1 A.D.3d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2134N

November 6, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Stephen C. Glasser, for plaintiff-appellant.

Brendan T. Fitzpatrick, for defendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Anne Marie Tormay, for third-party defendant-respondent/second third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Richard E. Lerner, for second third-party defendants-respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan, Lerner, JJ.


While leave to amend a pleading is freely given (CPLR 3025[b]), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying such leave since plaintiff failed to support her motion with "competent medical proof of the causal connection between the [accident] and the death of the original plaintiff" (McGuire v. Small, 129 A.D.2d 429). Plaintiff's decedent sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder. He died approximately two and one-half years later, and esophageal cancer was listed as the sole cause of his death. Plaintiff's conclusory medical affidavit was insufficient to establish a causal connection between the decedent's cancer and his injuries, or to establish that the injuries played a role in hastening his death. Although plaintiff's expert's affidavit set forth an alleged chain of events, it explained the cause-effect relationships between the links of the chain in conclusory terms and failed to indicate what medical records were reviewed. Furthermore, the expert did not set forth his credentials.

In addition, defendants would be prejudiced by the addition of the wrongful death claim because they had not been previously made aware of any potential cancer-related claim by way of a bill of particulars or otherwise and because, under the circumstances, they were unable to conduct any meaningful investigation in order to prepare adequate defenses.

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


Summaries of

Griffin v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 6, 2003
1 A.D.3d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Griffin v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:JANICE GRIFFIN, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT…

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

Date published: Nov 6, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 15

Citing Cases

Rubick v. Atkins

As a general rule, leave to amend a pleading is freely granted (CPLR 3025 [b]; see Siegel, NY Prac § 237…

Rubick v. Atkins

As a general rule, leave to amend a pleading is freely granted (CPLR 3025[b]; see Siegel, N.Y. Prac, § 237…