Opinion
October 14, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.),
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.
The plaintiff made the instant motion to amend her bill of particulars to assert new injuries. While leave to amend a bill of particulars is to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise, when leave to amend a bill of particulars is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised in a discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious manner ( see, Kyong Hi Wohn v. County of Suffolk, 237 A.D.2d 412; Volpe v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 213 A.D.2d 398; see also, Daud v. Forest Garden Apts. Co., 178 A.D.2d 578). Moreover, when there has been an inordinate delay in seeking to amend to include a new injury, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable excuse for the delay and submit an affidavit to establish the merits of the proposed amendment ( see, Volpe v. Good Samaritan Hosp., supra; Simino v. St. Mary's Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 800).
The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her inordinate delay in seeking to add new injuries, and the plaintiff's medical affidavit failed to sufficiently establish a nexus between the new injuries and the plaintiff's accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to serve an amended bill of particulars (see, Kyong Hi Wohn v. County of Suffolk, supra).
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.