Opinion
July 12, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Underwood, Jr., J.
Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of plaintiffs for leave to amend their bill of particulars ( cf., Scarangello v State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798). Defendants will not be prejudiced by the court's granting plaintiffs' motion because the proposed supplemental bill of particulars merely amplifies the allegations in the original bill of particulars with respect to the physical injuries sustained by Andrew Myones (plaintiff) as a result of the accident ( see, Scarangello v. State of New York, supra, at 799).
We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting that part of the motion of plaintiffs to increase the ad damnum clause ( see, Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 801; Maddox v. City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 535; cf., Robbins v. Sperlazza, 72 A.D.2d 558). The supporting affidavits of plaintiff and the affirmations of his treating physicians demonstrate that plaintiff's injuries have continually increased in severity and have resulted in the unanticipated consequence of total disability. Thus, the record establishes that there has been a good faith and timely reevaluation of damages, without any persuasive showing that such an increase will unduly prejudice defendants.