You are here: / / HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED...
, , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, NOT AN AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS, MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL; DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED IT; LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to compel defendants to accept a second supplemental bill of particulars after plaintiff had surgery on her injured shoulder:

“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'” (… quoting CPLR 3043[b]). Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff sought to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered to her left shoulder 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 … . Miller v Great Vegetable Farm, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04170, Second Dept 7-16-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff documented the results of surgery on her injured shoulder in a supplemental bill of particulars. Because the document addressed injuries already alleged to have been caused by the slip and fall, and not new injuries, the document was a supplemental bill of particulars, not an amended bill of particulars. As long as a supplemental bill of particulars is served more than 30 days before trial, leave of court is not required and defendant must accept it.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS DRIVER LICENSE BASED ON THE PLEA; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POST-REVOCATION RELICENSING IS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTS’ CONTROL (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
REAL ESTATE BROKER ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS TERMINATED THE BROKER’S SERVICES IN BAD FAITH JUST BEFORE ENTERING THE LEASE AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AFTER COVID REACHED NEW YORK CITY) WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE, BUT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS ONLY FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (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

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS... THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT PLACEMENT OF THE AUTISTIC CHILD IN A “QUALIFIED...