From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baby Togs, Inc. v. Faleck & Margolies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 1997
239 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 22, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court New York County (Alfred Toker, J.),


In light of the fact that plaintiff did not seek to amend its original bill of particulars, which limited the scope of damages to 65 checked items of inventory out of 1,060 contained in a warehouse reconciliation report, to include all 1,060 items until the eve of trial, nearly seven years after filing its original bill of particulars, despite the fact that it could have done so from the outset, and given the severe prejudice to defendants due to the lack of discovery with respect to the remaining items contained in the report, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying leave to amend ( Vega v Lenox Hill Hosp., 235 A.D.2d 302). Plaintiff has not provided adequate substantiation for its assertion that the error in the original bill of particulars was inadvertent or typographical.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Baby Togs, Inc. v. Faleck & Margolies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 1997
239 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Baby Togs, Inc. v. Faleck & Margolies, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BABY TOGS, INC., Appellant, v. FALECK MARGOLIES, INC., et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 22, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 842

Citing Cases

Razzano v. Woodstock Owners Corp.

His delay until August 2007 in requesting leave to amend his answer is inexcusable."]; Baby Togs, Inc. v…

Razenson v. Germann

Moreover, the plaintiffs did not submit an affidavit of merit by their expert demonstrating that the 38…