Ali Guy and Gramercy Park Physical Medicine.Īs an initial matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's motion should be denied as it failed to demonstrate timely service of the Order to Show Cause. Skinner, Esq., 875 Merrick Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590.ĭefendant moves for an Order to strike Plaintiff's amended Bill of Particulars, which Defendant contends that Plaintiff incorrectly refers to as a "2nd Supplemental Bill of Particulars" and to preclude Plaintiff from offering any evidence with respect to any and all treatment by Dr. Subin, Esq., 150 Broadway-23rd Fl., New York, NY 10038 ĭefendant is represented by James G. Plaintiff is represented by Subin Associates, LLP, by Eric D.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.Ĭivil Court of the City of New York, Kings County Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at if you or a client has a question regarding discovery obligations (and what to do if a litigant is not honoring those obligations).Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County As this decision shows, a bill of particulars is intended to amplify the allegations of a pleading, not as a substitute for discovery devices, such as interrogatories.
The scope of discovery in New York is broad, but it does not include the device discussed here: a demand for a bill of particulars. (Internal quotations and citations omitted).Ī big part of complex commercial litigation is giving, receiving and evaluating evidence (this is called "discovery"). Accordingly, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars is vacated. The Defendants may not avoid the limitation on the number of interrogatories by simply calling it a demand for a bill of particulars. However, such requests are improper in a bill of particulars and must be sought in the form of interrogatories pursuant to Rule 11-a of the Commercial Division Rules or by another appropriate disclosure device. Significantly, the majority of the requests vaguely ask the Plaintiff to "state the basis for the allegations" for nearly every paragraph of the 95 paragraph, highly detailed complaint (Requests 13-75). To wit, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars seeks the identification of witnesses with knowledge of relevant information (requests 1 and 2), and a computation of damages (request 11). Here, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, which contains 75 paragraphs, excluding subparts, seeks details more appropriately developed at a deposition and not consonant with the purposes of a bill of particulars. In this case, no such expansion was requested or provided. In addition, the commercial division rules limit interrogatories to 25, including subparts, unless the court provides a different limit in the preliminary conference order. When a bill of particulars is replete with palpably improper evidentiary requests, the proper remedy is vacatur of the bill of particulars. In other words, the purpose of the bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial, but it is not a vehicle to obtain evidentiary material. In fact, although the drafters of the CPLR also recommended its abolishment in conjunction with the expansion of the disclosure statutes now found in article 31, the Legislature retained the bill of particulars, not as a disclosure device, but in its traditional and limited role as a means of amplifying a pleading. The bill of particulars has been abolished in many jurisdictions, including in the federal courts, as broader disclosure statutes have rendered them superfluous. 32944(U), vacating a demand for a bill of particulars because it was being used as a discovery device, explaining:
On September 8, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Orentreich v. Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Demand for a Bill of Particulars Vacated Because it Was Being Used as a Discovery Device