Opinion
October 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to serve a second amended and supplemental bill of particulars, even though plaintiff had filed the note of issue and certificate of readiness nearly two months earlier, because plaintiff demonstrated that special circumstances existed which supported the grant of this relief (see, CPLR 3025 [b]; cf., Stanovick v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., 116 A.D.2d 1000; Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 1038; Gardner v Fyr-Fyter Co., 55 A.D.2d 816). Moreover, on this record, defendants have not shown that they have been "hindered in the preparation of [their] case or [have] been prevented from taking some measure in support of [their] position" (Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 801; see, also, Rutz v Kellum, 144 N.Y.2d 1017, 1018).