You are here: / / NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED,...
,

NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the document submitted by plaintiff was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. Therefore the document could be served without permission from the court:

​

In his original bill of particulars dated February 8, 2006, the injured plaintiff alleged that he sustained permanent personal injuries, including depression, insomnia, agitation, poor concentration, loneliness, and tenseness, and that his injuries were accompanied by distress, depression, stress, and psychological difficulties. After the Supreme Court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was reversed on appeal … and the case was restored to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs served, pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), an expert witness disclosure dated August 4, 2013, and the affidavit of their expert psychologist dated April 27, 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served a supplemental bill of particulars dated February 17, 2015, alleging the additional injuries or damages of post-traumatic stress disorder and future costs of long-term psychotherapy. In the order appealed from, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to strike the supplemental bill of particulars and denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was to compel the defendant to accept the supplemental bill of particulars. The court found that the supplemental bill of particulars sought to add new injuries, thereby rendering it an amended bill of particulars, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the inordinate delay in seeking leave to include the new injuries. The plaintiffs appeal.

Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff in a personal injury action may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing “continuing special damages and disabilities,” without leave of the court at any time, but not less than 30 days prior to trial, if it alleges “no new cause of action” or claims no “new injury.” Here, the plaintiffs sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in the original bill of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries … . Since the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars, and was served more than 30 days prior to trial, leave of court was not required … . Khosrova v Hampton Bays Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05075, 2nd Dept 6-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BILL OF PARTICULARS, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPPLEMENTAL VERSUS AMENDED, NO NEW INJURIES WERE ALLEGED, THE DOCUMENT WAS A SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT AN AMENDED, BILL OF PARTICULARS, LEAVE OF COURT NOT REQUIRED)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecutor’s Remarks in Summation, in Combination with the Erroneous Admission of Portions of a Recorded Phone Call Made by the Defendant from Jail, Warranted Reversal
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL DEEMED INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
TAXI LICENSES ARE NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRAND LARCENY STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT... LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO SHOWING...