![]() ![]() Since a bill of particulars is not a disclosure device but a means of amplifying a pleading, the present dispute over the contents of the plaintiffs' amended bills of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise. ![]() We reverse.Īlthough the defendants are correct that the plaintiffs raise for the first time on appeal the contention that the J.H.O./Referee lacked authority under CPLR 3104 to issue the order dated May 2, 2017, this contention may be reached since it involves a question of law that is apparent on the face of the record and could not have been avoided by the Supreme Court if it had been brought to its attention. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved to vacate that order. ![]() 03450, holding that a bill of particulars is not a discovery device, explaining:īy order dated May 2, 2017, a J.H.O./Referee granted the separate motions of the defendants New York Community Hospital and Hassan Farhat, the defendants Metropolitan Jewish Home Care, Inc., Metropolitan Jewish Health System, Home First, Inc., and Beth Israel Medical Center, and the defendants Yury Zamdborg and Ilya Bilik, inter alia, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the amended bills of particulars served by the plaintiffs in response to the defendants' motions failed to comply with multiple prior court orders directing the plaintiffs to provide the defendants with supplemental or amended bills of particulars. ![]() New York Community Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op. On June 2, 2021, the Second Department issued a decision in Kramarenko v. Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Bill of Particulars Not a Discovery Device This entry was posted in Damages, New York, Trial Practice by Brian Gibbons. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions. Thanks to Dana Purcaro for her contribution to this post. This decision represents another example of a frustrating pro-plaintiff trend in New York Courts, and should be heeded by attorneys and insurers alike. The Court found that the supplemental bill of particulars alleged damages that were “continuing consequences of injuries suffered and described in the original bill of particulars rather than new, unrelated injuries.” This decision contributes to the uphill battle defendants face when presented with a supplemental bill of particulars with related, yet new, allegations on the eve of trial. On appeal the Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s decision. The lower court granted the defendant’s motion. Nine years later plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars alleging additional injuries and damages of post-traumatic stress disorder and long-term psychotherapy.ĭefendant’s made a motion to strike the supplemental bill of particulars claiming that it alleges new injuries and as such is actually an amended bill of particulars done without leave of court. Plaintiff initially alleged personal injuries including depression, insomnia, agitation, poor concentration, loneliness and tenseness with distress, stress, and psychological difficulties. 2017), plaintiff was assaulted by a fellow student while waiting for the bus outside of the school. Hampton Bays, 2017 Slip Op 05075 (2d Dept. The crux of this issue is whether the new injuries are related to the original injuries as to survive the statutory standard. Pursuant to the CPLR §3043(b), a party may supplement the bill of particulars up to 30 days prior to trial only as to “continuing special damages and disabilities,” they may not allege new and additional injuries. Last minute supplemental bills of particulars are common in personal injury cases and often result in motion practice seeking to strike the new and additional injuries alleged or permit discovery related to them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |