You are here: / / THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED...
, ,

THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Judicial Hearing Officer (J.H.O)/Referee did not have the authority to grant defendants motion to strike the complaint on the ground the amended bill of particulars did not comply with prior court orders. A bill of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure which CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise. Because this is question of law could not have been avoided if brought up below, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal:

“Since a bill of particulars is not a disclosure device but a means of amplifying a pleading, the present dispute over the contents of the [plaintiffs’ amended] bill[s] of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise” … . Since CPLR 3104 did not authorize the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ separate motions, among other things, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them based upon the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ amended bills of particulars, and there exists no order of reference authorizing the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ motions, the J.H.O./Referee was without authority to determine the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them … . Kramarenko v New York Community Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

You might also like
Failure to Comply with Service Method in Order to Show Cause Required Dismissal
No Showing Attorney Had Acquired Any Client Confidences Before Changing Firms
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.
EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION IN THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS BEING INCARCERATED DURING THE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED BY THE FILING OF SIMILAR ACTIONS ALLEGING THE UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES TO HOME HEALTH AIDES (SECOND DEPT).
LEASE TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO TENANT, DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND 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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PROPERLY INSTRUCTED INFANT PLAINTIFF... THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CLAIMED THEY DID NOT...