Geller v. Port Jefferson Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.

294 A.D.2d 537, 742 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5564
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 537 (Geller v. Port Jefferson Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Geller v. Port Jefferson Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 294 A.D.2d 537, 742 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Klein, J.), dated May 7, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Port Jefferson Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., Donald F. Bruhn, Frank R. Collier, Philip J. Markowski, M.D., P.C., Frank Raphael Collier, Philip J. Markowski, and Stephen Golub, inter alia, to strike their note of issue to the extent of striking their amended bills of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Pursuant to CPLR 3042 (b), a party may serve an amended bill of particulars, as of right, once before the filing of a note of issue. Such an amendment “ ‘can [make] any change at all in the bill,’ ” and enables a party to include whatever could have been included in the original bill of particulars (Martinovics v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 285 AD2d 532, 535, quoting Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3042:14, at 538). Since the plaintiffs served their first amended bills of particulars prior to the filing of the note of issue and service of the first amended bills of particulars was not prohibited by the preliminary conference order signed by the parties, the amended bills should have been allowed (see Martinovics v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra; Dubose v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 229 AD2d 312; Torre v Cifarelli, 157 AD2d 713).

The respondents’ alternative contention is without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

B. E. M. v. Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist.
2022 NY Slip Op 02990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Salgado v. Town Sports International
73 A.D.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
294 A.D.2d 537, 742 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geller-v-port-jefferson-obstetrics-gynecology-pc-nyappdiv-2002.