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
DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED.
Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court
Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained
PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS THAT A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING FRAUD, DURESS, COERCION AND UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (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...