![]() ![]() The court granted the claimant's motion to vacate the order, onĬondition that the attorney personally remit one hundred dollars to the State. The claimant in an appropriation proceeding had ignored a demandīy the State for a bill of particulars. Similarly permitted the use of the device for the identification of previous victims. Prevent surprise at the trial and would permit the defendants to investigate such claim Whether the dog was claimed to have bitten anyone in the past, stating that it "would State9 8 involved a motion to vacate aĬonditional preclusion order which had been granted to the State after The cost of the record of an examination before trial would otherwiseĬPLR 3042: Attorney personally fined for ignoring a demand for aīlanchfield Storage, Inc. Toward making the courts more accessible to many litigants for whom It mirrors a welcome judicial inclination Idea that the scope of the bill of particulars should be expanded in this Intelligence that may be afforded by use."97 Nevertheless, the ![]() On the parties and the court that far outweigh the modicum of added It has been argued that the bill of particulars "imposes burdens Litigation, citing the increasing cost of the record of examinationsīefore trial, the usual device by which such information is obtained. Scope of the bill of particulars as a means of reducing the expense of The Supreme Court, Ulster County, advocated the expansion of the Persons who were with him at the time of the incident. Plaintiff, a dog-bite victim, was required to furnish the identity of Such circumstances were found in Block v. 93 However, courts willĪllow a demand for such information under special circumstances. Scope of proof.92 The bill was not intended as a means of elicitingĮvidence or obtaining the names of witnesses. The pleading, prevention of surprise at trial, and limitation of the Generally, the purposes of a bill of particulars are amplification of Witnesses is permissible under special circumstances. Available at: ĬPLR 3041: A demand in a bill of particularsfor identification of John's Law Review (1972) "CPLR 3042: Attorney Personally Fined for Ignoring a Demand for a Bill of Particulars," St. For more information, please contact, USAįollow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. CPLR 3025(b)&(c): Cases Illustrate Disagreement Over Whether To Grant a Motion To Amend Ad Damnum ClauseĠ This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. CPLR 3212: Defendant Held Not Entitled to Summary Judgment in Negligence Action When Plaintiff Has Been Precluded from Establishing a Prima Facie CaseĬPLR 3025(b)&(c): Cases Illustrate Disagreement Over Whether To Grant a. CPLR 3101: Restrictions on Pretrial Disclosure in Matrimonial Actions Deemed ObsoleteĬPLR 3212: Defendant Held Not Entitled to Summary Judgment in Negligence. ![]() CPLR 3041: Bill of Particulars May Not Contain Reservation of Right To File Supplemental BillĬPLR 3101: Restrictions on Pretrial Disclosure in Matrimonial Actions Deemed. CPLR 3041: A Demand in a Bill of Particulars for Identification of Witnesses Is Permissible Under Special CircumstancesĬPLR 3101: Liberalization of Disclosure in Matrimonial Actions CPLR 3101: Liberalization of Disclosure in Matrimonial ActionsĬPLR 3041: Bill of Particulars May Not Contain Reservation of Right To File. CPLR 3101: Pre-Trial Disclosure on the Issue of Child Custody in a Matrimonial Action DeniedĬPLR 3041: A Demand in a Bill of Particulars for Identification of Witnesses. CPLR 3101: Pre-Trial Disclosure on the Issue of Child Custody in a.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |