Opinion
January 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve a third amended bill of particulars and additional medical reports. Absent prejudice or surprise such motions are to be liberally granted (see, e.g., Bossert v Jay Dee Transp., 114 A.D.2d 833; Simino v St. Mary's Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 800). Although we are mindful of the policy that judicial discretion in allowing such amendments in an action which has long been certified ready for trial should be discrete, circumspect, prudent and cautious (Balport Constr. Co. v New York Tel. Co., 134 A.D.2d 309, 311-312; Alexander v Seligman, 131 A.D.2d 528), where, as here, no inordinate delay in seeking the amendment is evident and the defendants have failed to demonstrate how they will be prejudiced by service of the proposed amended bill and additional medical reports, the amended bill and reports which appear simply to amplify the claim of injuries stated in the original bill were properly allowed (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 801; Bossert v Jay Dee Transp., supra; Simino v St. Mary's Hosp., supra). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.