HILLENBRAND v. 3801 REVIEW PLACE, INC.


72 A.D.2d 554 (1979)

Edwin Hillenbrand et al., Appellants, v. 3801 Review Place, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Patrick J. La Velle, Doing Business as Golden Shamrock, Respondent, and Rheingold Breweries, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

October 15, 1979


Order reversed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable jointly by respondents and motion granted. Since plaintiffs' motion to amend is based solely upon an update of original injuries, compliance with the affidavit requirement of London v Moore (32 A.D.2d 543) was unnecessary (see Church v Catholic Med. Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 52 A.D.2d 898, 899).

Hence, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion on the ground that the affidavit by plaintiffs' physician failed to establish a causal link between the alleged injury and the accident. Additionally the delay in making the instant motion is not per se an acceptable ground for the denial, in view of the fact that respondents have failed to demonstrate how they would suffer actual prejudice at trial (see Calautti v National Transp. Co., 10 A.D.2d 955; see, also, Finn v Crystal Beach Tr. Co., 55 A.D.2d 1001).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases