Scherrer v. Time Equities, Inc., 7997N.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation27 A.D.3d 208,810 N.Y.S.2d 454,2006 NY Slip Op 01522
Decision Date02 March 2006
Docket Number7997N.
PartiesEUGENE F. SCHERRER, Appellant-Respondent, v. TIME EQUITIES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.
27 A.D.3d 208
810 N.Y.S.2d 454
2006 NY Slip Op 01522
EUGENE F. SCHERRER, Appellant-Respondent,
v.
TIME EQUITIES, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendants.
7997N.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
March 2, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 23, 2005, which granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's supplemental bills of particulars dated November 2, 2004, and December 29, 2004, denied defendants' motions to preclude plaintiff from calling certain witnesses and for an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion to strike insofar as to reinstate both supplemental bills of particulars, except insofar as they allege diabetes and headaches, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.


The supplemental bill of particulars dated November 2, 2004, which cited additional statutory violations, should not have been struck since it merely amplified and elaborated upon the theory already set forth in the original bill of particulars and raised no new theory of liability (Balsamo v City of New York, 287 AD2d 22, 27 [2001]; Noetzell v Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231, 232 [2000]; Orros v Yick Ming Yip Realty, 258 AD2d 387 [1999]). However, the allegations of diabetes and headaches in the December 29, 2004 supplemental bill of particulars were properly struck since those injuries had not been alleged in the original bill of particulars (see Licht v Trans Care N.Y., 3 AD3d 325 [2004]). The remaining bill of particulars allegations, regarding plaintiff's respiratory condition and his treatment, should not have been struck since they merely elaborated on injuries already alleged in the original bill of particulars by expanding upon the extent of the continuing disability, and the nature of plaintiff's treatment (see Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84, 87 [1983]; Villalona v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 261 AD2d 185 [1999]; Clarke v Yonkers Gen. Hosp., 228 AD2d 152, 153-154 [1996]).

The denial of defendants' motion to preclude witnesses was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Plaintiff complied with the discovery order at issue within two months of the court's deadline, there is no evidence of wilful or contumacious conduct on plaintiff's part, and defendants were not prejudiced (see Anagnostaros v 81st St. Residence Corp., 269 AD2d 150 [2000]).

The motion for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Charles v. Suvannavejh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 17, 2009
    ...proposed pleadings. Rahman v. Domber, 45 A.D.3d 497, 846 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1st Dep't 2007); Antwerpse Diamantbank, N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 180; Leff v. Benihana of Tokyo, 304 A.D.2d 350, 351, 758 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1st Dep't 2003); Valdes v. Marbrose Realty, 289 A.D.2d at 29, ......
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 19, 2014
    ...of support for plaintiff's claims. Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 926 N.Y.S.2d 98 ; Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d at 271, 658 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d at 149, 61......
  • Glynos v. Dorizas, Index No. 113984/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...hindered the preparation of support for his claims. Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d at 694; Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d at 271; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d at 149. Plaintiff protests that he will suffer......
  • Dasilva v. C & E Ventures Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 21, 2011
    ...clarifying allegations based on additional factors uncovered during discovery ( see CPLR 3025[b], [c]; Scherrer v. Time Equities, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2006] ). Despite Liard's delay in seeking leave to supplement, the PA cannot claim prejudice, as the supplement set forth ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Charles v. Suvannavejh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 17, 2009
    ...proposed pleadings. Rahman v. Domber, 45 A.D.3d 497, 846 N.Y.S.2d 167 (1st Dep't 2007); Antwerpse Diamantbank, N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 180; Leff v. Benihana of Tokyo, 304 A.D.2d 350, 351, 758 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1st Dep't 2003); Valdes v. Marbrose Realty, 289 A.D.2d at 29, ......
  • FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • August 19, 2014
    ...of support for plaintiff's claims. Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 694, 926 N.Y.S.2d 98 ; Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d at 271, 658 N.Y.S.2d 618 ; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d at 149, 61......
  • Glynos v. Dorizas, Index No. 113984/2011
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...hindered the preparation of support for his claims. Anoun v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d at 694; Antwerpse Diamantbank N.V. v. Nissel, 27 A.D.3d at 208; Cseh v. New York City Tr. Auth., 240 A.D.2d at 271; Norwood v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d at 149. Plaintiff protests that he will suffer......
  • Dasilva v. C & E Ventures Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 21, 2011
    ...clarifying allegations based on additional factors uncovered during discovery ( see CPLR 3025[b], [c]; Scherrer v. Time Equities, Inc., 27 A.D.3d 208, 810 N.Y.S.2d 454 [2006] ). Despite Liard's delay in seeking leave to supplement, the PA cannot claim prejudice, as the supplement set forth ......
  • 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