Narrative Opinion Summary
The order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated January 11, 1995, which granted the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s amended bill of particulars, has been unanimously reversed on legal grounds, with the motion denied and no costs awarded. According to CPLR 3042(b), a party is entitled to amend the bill of particulars once as a matter of right, provided that the note of issue has not been filed. In this instance, since the plaintiff sought to amend the bill before the filing of the note of issue, the amendment should have been permitted, as established in the case of Scalamandre v Caruso, 151 AD2d 467. Additionally, defendants were required to move to strike the amended bill within 10 days of receiving it, as indicated in CPLR 3042(former(d). Their failure to act within the nine-month period rendered their claim invalid. The decision was concurred by Justices Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman, and Ross.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Bill of Particulars under CPLR 3042(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff is entitled to amend the bill of particulars once as a matter of right before the filing of the note of issue, which the court recognized in reversing the lower court's order.
Reasoning: According to CPLR 3042(b), a party is entitled to amend the bill of particulars once as a matter of right, provided that the note of issue has not been filed.
Time Limitation for Motion to Strike Amended Bill of Particularssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants must move to strike an amended bill of particulars within 10 days of receipt. In this case, the defendants failed to act within the required timeframe, making their claim to strike the amendment invalid.
Reasoning: Additionally, defendants were required to move to strike the amended bill within 10 days of receiving it, as indicated in CPLR 3042(former(d). Their failure to act within the nine-month period rendered their claim invalid.