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
Sheriff’s (Lack of) Liability Under Respondeat Superior, Elements of Malicious Prosection, Abuse of Process, False Imprisonment and Libel Per Se Explained
ABSENCE OF MARKINGS OR COLOR DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN STEP AND SIDEWALK CREATED AN ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE STEP WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION, IRRESPECTIVE OF PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN ERRONEOUSLY PRONOUNCED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DEAD AND ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO REEXAMINE HIM FOR NEARLY THREE HOURS, DESPITE THE PLEAS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ALLEGEDLY SAW HIM BREATHING, MAKING EYE CONTACT AND MOVING; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE PARTIES FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE; THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
“Speaking Authorizations” Re Non-Party Healthcare Providers in Lead-Paint Injury Case Okay/But Not Okay for Non-Party Educators
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE RELATED DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WAS NOT TRANSFERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT, IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND FINAL ACCOUNTING REGARDING A TRUST, DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, MATTER REMITTED (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 © 2026 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...