Patterson v. Jewish Hospital and Medical Center of Brooklyn

Decision Date02 October 1978
Citation409 N.Y.S.2d 124,65 A.D.2d 553
PartiesMary PATTERSON, Respondent, v. The JEWISH HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Bower & Gardner, New York City (Thomas R. Newman, Arthur N. Seiff and Andrew N. Sears, New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Katz, Shandell, Katz & Erasmous, New York City (Richard E. Shandell, Emily Diamond and Stephanie C. Brand, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, the appeals are from so much of two orders (one as to each appellant) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (MONTELEONE, J.), both dated May 18, 1978, as granted the plaintiff's motions to strike items 5, 6, 8 and 9 from each of the appellant's demand for a bill of particulars. Orders affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Venezia v. Klinger, 61 A.D.2d 1145, 402 N.Y.S.2d 702 and Johnson v. Charow, 63 A.D.2d 668, 404 N.Y.S.2d 685 (2d Dept., dec. May 8, 1978) are controlling here. Insofar as Nelson v. New York Univ. Med. Center, 51 A.D.2d 352, 381 N.Y.S.2d 491 (1st Dept.) is to the contrary, we decline to follow it.

DAMIANI, J. P., and SUOZZI, SHAPIRO and COHALAN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Scalone v. Phelps Memorial Hosp. Center
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 7 Diciembre 1992
    ...A.D.2d 1003, 440 N.Y.S.2d 109; Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. and Med. Center of Brooklyn, 94 Misc.2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194, aff'd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit proof, and prevent surprise at trial; it is not an evidenc......
  • Bouton v. Suffolk County
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 31 Diciembre 1986
    ...of a bill of particulars (cf. Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center of Brooklyn, 94 Misc.2d 680, 683, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194, affd. 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124). Furthermore, although "a plaintiff is required to specify the statutes, ordinances and laws claimed to have been violated, plaint......
  • Rodriguez v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 23 Diciembre 2020
    ...(see Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. and Med. Ctr. , 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 1978], affd 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 [2d Dept. 1979] ; see also Colwin v. Katz , 90 A.D.3d 516, 934 N.Y.S.2d 309 [1st Dept. 2011] ), and plaintiff's responses to demand numbers 3,......
  • Bharwani v. del Rosario
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 18 Febrero 1992
    ...the demanders bear the burden of proof (see, Coleman v. Richards, 138 A.D.2d 556, 526 N.Y.S.2d 138; Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center of Brooklyn, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124, aff'g 94 Misc.2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194; Cirelli v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 A.D.2d 856, 358 N.Y.S.2d 537; s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT