DRWAL v. [And A Third-Party Action]. (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Dominic J. DRWAL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 101 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And A Third-Party Action].

Decided: April 04, 2000

WILLIAMS, J.P., ELLERIN, RUBIN and SAXE, JJ.

Michael S. Levine, for Plaintiff-Respondent. Michael V. DiMartini, for Defendants-Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a window washer who claims that he was struck in the neck and back by a defective scaffold, served an amended bill of particulars alleging that the accident occurred one week earlier than originally alleged. Defendants, the owner and managing agent of the building where the alleged accident occurred, argue that the amendment is a new claim of which the original pleadings did not give notice within the meaning of CPLR 203(f), and that the action should therefore be dismissed as time-barred. The argument is without merit. No new claim is being made, and defendants do not show any prejudice as a result of plaintiff's correction of a factual detail. Defendants have had ample opportunity to investigate whether the alleged accident in fact occurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law