Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ricky L. MILES and Barbara Lanier Miles, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Ricky L. Miles (plaintiff) when he fell from the ladder of a boxcar. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed by defendant as a conductor at its Frontier Yard. Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the cause of action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.). Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law “that negligence by the employer could have played no part in [plaintiff's] injury” (Pidgeon v. Metro-North Commuter R. R., 248 A.D.2d 318, 319, 670 N.Y.S.2d 833, citing Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 361 U.S. 138, 140-141, 80 S.Ct. 242, 4 L.Ed.2d 198; see, Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506-507, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied 353 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 808, 1 L.Ed.2d 764). The court also properly granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege defendant's violation of the Boiler Inspection Act (49 U.S.C. § 20701). The proposed amendment is based upon the same facts alleged in the original bill of particulars, and there is no indication that defendant has been prejudiced by plaintiffs' delay in seeking leave to amend (see, Ganci v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 258 A.D.2d 386, 686 N.Y.S.2d 9; Cardy v. Frey, 86 A.D.2d 968, 969-970, 448 N.Y.S.2d 291).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)