![]() In motion sequence number two, defendant Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove ("Glen Cove") moves for an order: (1) dismissing plaintiffs' complaint or, in the alternative (2) vacating the plaintiffs' Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness and striking this action from the trial calendar (3) granting the defendants permission to complete pretrial proceedings, including directing that plaintiffs provide responses to all outstanding demands and discovery notices (4) striking improper language from the Amended/Supplemental Verified Bill of Particulars dated March 7, 2011, served on Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove (5) striking all language in the Amended/Supplemental Verified Bill of Particulars dated March 7, 2011, which alleges that Glen Cove Hospital s/h/a North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove has vicarious liability for any individuals, including Dr. and NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AT GLEN COVE, Defendants. Ingolf Holm-Andersen, M.D., INGOLF HOLM-ANDERSEN, M.D, P.C., VINCENT PESIRI, M.D. Crispino and CHRISTINE CRISPINO, Plaintiffs, This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.Ĭharles P. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Slip Op.Crispino v Holm-Andersen 2011 NY Slip Op 51775(U) Decided on SeptemSupreme Court, Nassau County Woodard, J. Upon our review of the testimony, we find that it was not sufficient to put defendants on notice of the injuries alleged in the supplemental bills of particulars.ġ97 A.D.3d 1043, 151 N.Y.S.3d 889 (Mem), 2021 N.Y. However, defendant Grey Dog Restaurant discusses the testimony in its brief, and we have taken judicial notice of the record in the prior appeal in which it is contained. ![]() This testimony is not part of the record on appeal. Plaintiff contends that defendants should have been aware of all his injuries when he testified extensively about the injuries described in his supplemental bills of particulars 3½ years before filing the supplemental bills. Accordingly, the court properly determined that the bills were amended, rather than supplemental, and could not properly be served without leave of court (CPLR 3042 see Wolfer, 27 A.D.3d at 280, 811 N.Y.S.2d 45 Kassis v. The supplemental bills “expanded not only on the extent of the continuing disability, but on the very nature of the injuries” ( see Wolfer v. The court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff's supplemental bills of particulars, served more than three years after the note of issue was filed, since they alleged new injuries and additional economic damages not alleged in the original bill of particulars (CPLR 3043). Bannon, J.), entered July 7, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff's supplemental bills of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Breeland of counsel), for respondent.Īcosta, P.J., Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ. McManus Ateshoglou Aiello & Apostolokos PLLC, New York (Brennan P. ![]() Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |