You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF...
,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have considered allegations of a serious injury in a car-accident case which were raised for the first time in a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” submitted in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion:

… [D]efendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to meet the serious injury threshold and for failure to incur economic loss exceeding basic economic loss. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” in which they added an allegation that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury under the significant disfigurement category of serious injury (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Defendant objected to plaintiffs' attempt to ” supplement' ” their bill of particulars in opposition to the motion.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion insofar as it concerned plaintiffs' claims for economic loss, but denied the motion “in all other respects.” In its decision supporting the order, the court wrote that the evidence submitted by plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact on all three categories of serious injury. Only defendant appeals.

We agree with defendant that plaintiffs improperly asserted a “new injury” in their “supplemental verified bill of particulars” (CPLR 3043 [b] …), and that the court erred in considering that new category of serious injury inasmuch as it was raised for the first time in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment … . We thus conclude that the claim of significant disfigurement was not cognizable by the court … , that it was error for the court to consider the new injury claim … , and that the court should have disregarded evidence related to that category of serious injury … . Stamps v Pudetti, 2016 NY Slip Op 02272, 4th Dept 3-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; MATTER CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUE DEPENDS ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PETITIONERS (THREE NYS LEGISLATORS AND AN ADVOCACY GROUP) DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ALLOWING ISOLATION AND QUARANTINE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSOLIDATED TWO INDICTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFECTIVE-DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A TRUCK WHICH DID NOT HAVE A BACK-UP ALARM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PURCHASER OF THE TRUCK TESTIFIED HE WAS NOT AWARE THE OPTION WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
MAINTENANCE FEES IMPOSED BY THE TOWN FOR TRIMMING AND REMOVING BRUSH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT TAXES, THEREFORE THE TOWN IS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FROM THE COUNTY FOR UNPAID MAINTENANCE FEES, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE RELEASE DID NOT APPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFFS JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS; THE FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE, THEREBY OVERCOMING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND WERE MADE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, THEREBY RENDERING THE EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.
THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM BY PLAINTIFF’S COWORKER DURING A FIREARMS TRAINING SESSION FOR ARMORED-CAR GUARDS WAS WITHIN THE DEFENDANT COWORKER’S SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (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

INADEQUATE INQUIRY PRECEDING FATHER’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED... STRIKING OF PLEADINGS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.