You are here: / / Language In Bill of Particulars Was Necessary to Support Claim for Punitive...

Language In Bill of Particulars Was Necessary to Support Claim for Punitive Damages—Language Should Not Have Been Struck as “Scandalous or Prejudicial”

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s order that plaintiff remove language from the bill of particulars which Supreme Court deemed “scandalous or prejudicial:”

… Counsel … made an oral application, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3024, to strike certain language from the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. … The court … directed the plaintiff to remove allegations that the respondents engaged in “recklessness/reckless, intentional and malicious conduct, gross negligence, blatantly illegal conduct/illegal conduct” (hereinafter the subject language) from her bill of particulars … .  * * *

CPLR 3024(b) provides that “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading.” This rule is applicable to bills of particulars as well … . In reviewing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), “the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action” … . Matters that are unnecessary to the viability of the cause of action and would cause undue prejudice to the defendants should be stricken from the pleading or bill of particulars … .

The causes of action asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint demonstrate that the subject language was relevant to this matter, and necessary to support the pleading based on the punitive damages sought. Irving v Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 07330, 2nd Dept 10-29-14

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE NEED FOR CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL 2ND DEPT.
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A 2009 AMENDED COMPLAINT SERVED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LEAVE OF COURT, ALTHOUGH INVALID AS A PLEADING, RE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEAS, MATTER REMITTED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEAS (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT MIGHT WIN AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMSSAL ARE DIFFERENT AND WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action Did Not Prohibit, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, the Plaintiff’s Action to Be Declared the Owner of the Subject Property/A Person With an Interest in Real Property Who Is Not Joined in a Foreclosure Action Is Unaffected by the Judgment of Foreclosure
THE STIPULATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRIOR DEBT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DEED TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY CREATED ONLY A SECURITY INTEREST AND DID NOT TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

How to Handle a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim When Documentary... Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based...