The court properly permitted plaintiff to amend the bill of particulars, since no prejudice accrued from plaintiff's late invocation of violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) and 23-2.1 (a) (1), and the claims entailed no new factual allegations or theories of liability (see Burton v CW Equities, LLC,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
FLYNN v. 835 6TH AVENUE MASTER L.P.
107 A.D.3d 614 (2013)
969 N.Y.S.2d 13
2013 NY Slip Op 4889
DOUGLAS FLYNN, Appellant-Respondent, v. 835 6TH AVENUE MASTER L.P. et al., Respondents-Appellants. 835 6TH AVENUE MASTER L.P. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. CENTURY-MAXIM CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. CENTURY-MAXIM CONSTRUCTION CORP., Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REBAR LATHING CORP., Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent/Third Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. 835 6TH AVENUE MASTER L.P. et al., Third Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided June 27, 2013.
Decided June 27, 2013.
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.