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.
Janice GRIFFIN, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
NEW YORK CITY Transit AUTHORITY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
T. Moriarty & Sons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent/Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Staten Island University Hospital, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered July 19, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to add a cause of action for wrongful death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While leave to amend a pleading is freely given (CPLR 3025[b] ), the court properly exercised its discretion in denying such leave since plaintiff failed to support her motion with “competent medical proof of the causal connection between the [accident] and the death of the original plaintiff” (McGuire v. Small, 129 A.D.2d 429, 513 N.Y.S.2d 691). Plaintiff's decedent sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder. He died approximately two and one-half years later, and esophageal cancer was listed as the sole cause of his death. Plaintiff's conclusory medical affidavit was insufficient to establish a causal connection between the decedent's cancer and his injuries, or to establish that the injuries played a role in hastening his death. Although plaintiff's expert's affidavit set forth an alleged chain of events, it explained the cause-effect relationships between the links of the chain in conclusory terms and failed to indicate what medical records were reviewed. Furthermore, the expert did not set forth his credentials.
In addition, defendants would be prejudiced by the addition of the wrongful death claim because they had not been previously made aware of any potential cancer-related claim by way of a bill of particulars or otherwise and because, under the circumstances, they were unable to conduct any meaningful investigation in order to prepare adequate defenses.
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: November 06, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)