![]() 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. ![]() Defendant Robert Salazar's Motion to Dismiss filed is denied.Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Bill of Particulars Not a Discovery Device Defendant Robert Salazar's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, filed, is denied. ![]() Defendant Robert Salazar's Motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed is granted as to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh claims for relief in the First Amended Complaint. ROBERT "ROB" SALAZAR, individuals, Order Concerning defendant, Robert Salazar's, Motion to Dismiss. ![]() d/b/a O’HARA REGIONAL CENTER FOR REHABILITATION, INC., a corporation SOLOMON HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, (Solomon), d/b/a SOLOMON HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, limited liability companies HERSCH "ARI" KRAUSZ DAVID SEBBAG, and V. HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LTD, (HCMP), d/b/a O'HARA REGIONAL CENTER FOR REHABILITATION, limited partnership O'HARA REGIONAL CENTER FOR REHABILITATION, limited partnership ORCR, INC. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the United States of America v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |