#Verified bill of particulars new york trial#

Again at her EBT of _, she again testifies unequivocally on pages _ that she fell on the sidewalk in front of _ located at _. At her EBT (§50(h) hearing of the General Municipal Law) of _, plaintiff testifies on pages _ that she fell on the sidewalk in front of _ located at _.

#Verified bill of particulars new york trial#

Plaintiff provided ample testimony during two examinations before trial (“EBT”) regarding this action.

Defendant, _, owns _ and leases the premises at _ from co-defendant owner _. On _, the Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on the public sidewalk in front of _ located at _, New York, as a result of an alleged dangerous, hazardous condition. 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).This Memorandum of Law is submitted in support of Defendants’, _, Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212(a) as there are no genuine issues of material fact and the sole issue before this Court involves a question of law.Ī review of all the pertinent facts and circumstances, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, _ (“Plaintiff”), demonstrates that summary judgment should be granted in favor of the defendants, _ (“Defendants”). 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