You are here: / / Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of...

Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion in limine because the bill of particulars was merely supplemented, not amended, by the additional information. The court also noted that the motion to preclude expert testimony was properly denied because there was no showing of a willful or intentional failure to disclose and no showing of prejudice:

“Where the plaintiff[s] seek[] to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars' ” … . Here, plaintiffs' second supplemental bill of particulars alleged that plaintiff may require surgery in the future, which could involve anterior C5-6 and C6-7 discectomy and fusion. In addition, plaintiffs alleged “future cumulative economic loss” of between approximately $1,299,555.00 and $1,699,464.00. Plaintiffs had alleged in their prior bills of particulars that plaintiff may require surgery and that there would be a claim for future lost earnings. Thus, the portions of the second supplemental bill of particulars at issue were “an anticipated sequelae” of the injuries and damages previously alleged and did not allege new claims … . Sisemore v Leffler, 2015 NY Slip Op 01076, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

You might also like
THE REVIVED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LAWSUITS ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER COULD NOT BE FOUND TO HAVE PERMANENTLY NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN AND ALSO BE FOUND MENTALLY ILL TO A DEGREE WARRANTING TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A DE FACTO MERGER OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WITH THE CURRENT DEFENDANT WAS DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Order Granting a Motion In Limine Is Appealable If It Effectively Limits the... An Action by a Judgment Creditor Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227 Seeks both Legal...