AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Request for a bill of particulars4/18/2024 In federal courts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have replaced the use of a bill of particulars with a motion for a more definite statement. State codes of Civil Procedure impose rules that govern the use of bills of particulars in civil actions brought in state court. It is not to be used as a discovery device to learn the evidence or strategy to be used at trial by the opposing party. A bill of particulars is neither a Pleading nor proof of the facts it states, but, rather, an elucidation of a pleading. It also serves to expedite the orderly progress of judicial proceedings by reducing, if not eliminating, the need for the amendment of ambiguous or vague pleadings. Its function is to give the party who requests it knowledge of what the opposing party has alleged in order to protect the party requesting the bill from surprise and in order to establish the real issues of the action. A bill can be submitted either voluntarily or pursuant to a court order for compliance with the demand. Although usually requested by a defendant, it can be demanded by a plaintiff if the defendant makes a counterclaim for a setoff or asserts a defense against him or her. In civil actions a bill of particulars is a written demand for the specifics of why an action at law was brought. 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).A written statement used in both civil and criminal actions that is submitted by a plaintiff or a prosecutor at the request of a defendant, giving the defendant detailed information concerning the claims or charges made against him or her. 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. Accordingly, the defendants' separate motions, among other things, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them must be denied.Ī big part of complex commercial litigation is giving, receiving and evaluating evidence (this is called "discovery"). The defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs' delay in providing amended bills of particulars was willful. Accordingly, the order dated May 2, 2017, must be vacated.Ĭontrary to the defendants' contentions, the amended bills of particulars were sufficient given that the parties' depositions have not been held. 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. 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 bills of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise. We reverse.Īlthough the defendants are correct that the plaintiffs raise for the first time on appeal the contention that the J.H.O./Referee lacked authority under CPLR 3104 to issue the order dated May 2, 2017, this contention may be reached since it involves a question of law that is apparent on the face of the record and could not have been avoided by the Supreme Court if it had been brought to its attention. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate. ![]() Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved to vacate that order. 03450, holding that a bill of particulars is not a discovery device, explaining:īy order dated May 2, 2017, a J.H.O./Referee granted the separate motions of the defendants New York Community Hospital and Hassan Farhat, the defendants Metropolitan Jewish Home Care, Inc., Metropolitan Jewish Health System, Home First, Inc., and Beth Israel Medical Center, and the defendants Yury Zamdborg and Ilya Bilik, inter alia, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the amended bills of particulars served by the plaintiffs in response to the defendants' motions failed to comply with multiple prior court orders directing the plaintiffs to provide the defendants with supplemental or amended bills of particulars. ![]() New York Community Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op. On June 2, 2021, the Second Department issued a decision in Kramarenko v. ![]() Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Bill of Particulars Not a Discovery Device
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |