![]() ![]() Marine Transport Services, Inc., which held that, while the information sought by the bill of particulars demand was undeniably information that would normally be obtained through discovery, there was no evidence that the party would suffer any prejudice by providing the requested information. The court rejected these arguments, citing the case of Twiddy v. ![]() She further asserts that the demand is evidentiary in nature and thus constitutes an interrogatory under CPLR 3130. In Ethington, the plaintiff argued that under CPLR 3043, a request which exceeds the statutorily defined scope of a demand for a bill of particulars is not a demand for a bill of particulars, regardless, it might be labeled. Accordingly, the defendant requested in its demand for a bill of particulars whether the plaintiff ever informed anyone in the store about her fall, and the plaintiff objected. ![]() In this trip and fall case, the plaintiff alleged personal injuries resulting from a fall in a department store owned and operated by the defendant. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., awarding the defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees for the appeal. The Appellate Division Second Judicial Department recently debunked this claim in Ethington v. ![]() These objections are unfounded and ignore the broad scope of discovery permitted during the pre-trial phase of litigation. Nevertheless, an issue frequently arises where the plaintiff’s counsel will object to the defendant’s demand for a Bill of Particulars, arguing that it exceeds the scope of what is specified in CPLR Section 3043 and/or has the nature of an interrogatory and that the defendant has thus waived its right to an examination before trial (EBT). This sharing of information facilitates a more efficient resolution of the case and encourages settlement since each party can now make more informed decisions on the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. Scibetta.ĭiscovery is a vital stage in the litigation process as it allows the parties to formally exchange information regarding the witnesses and evidence they intend to present, thereby eliminating surprises at the time of trial. If a bill of particulars does not explain enough of the case to support the lawsuit, then the other party might be able to file a motion to dismiss the claim.By Marc H. Once you know what the other side is trying to prove to the judge, you can better prepare for depositions or trial. This way, the parties can start to understand what the other side’s “theory of the case” will be – in other words, what the party is trying to prove to the judge so that s/he can get the outcome and the relief s/he is looking for. If there is a complaint filed by one party and a counter-complaint filed by the other party, both parties may request a bill of particulars against each other. Usually, requests for bill of particulars are sent out before depositions happen, and before other forms of discovery, so that the other party has a more complete sense of the allegations against him/her. In other words, a bill of particulars is a discovery tool that can be used by a respondent to figure out what the other party is claiming happened. The respondent in a lawsuit might request a bill of particulars if the complaint has general allegations without getting into the specific details that would be necessary for the respondent to properly defend him/herself in the case. A bill of particulars is a written document in which a party has to explain the allegations in his/her complaint, or petition, in more detail. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |