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 kommentar(er)
