Hayes v. Kearney
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 12, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court order dated April 9, 1996, denied the defendants' motions to compel the plaintiff to serve amended bills of particulars in a medical malpractice case following the plaintiff's cataract surgery and subsequent infection leading to the removal of his left eye. The plaintiff initiated legal action against the surgeon, John Kearney, and the hospital, Nathan Littauer Hospital. Both defendants requested bills of particulars detailing the specific allegations of negligence but found the plaintiff's responses vague and overly broad. The Supreme Court emphasized that a bill of particulars is intended to clarify pleadings, limit proof, and prevent trial surprises. The court noted that the plaintiff's responses lacked the required specificity, containing general statements instead of clearly delineated acts of negligence. The court highlighted deficiencies in the plaintiff's responses, such as ambiguous phrases and general claims that failed to provide enough detail for a reasonable defense. It directed that the plaintiff must furnish more specific answers to the defendants' demands, indicating clearly the actions or omissions for which each defendant is being held accountable. If the plaintiff does not have the requested information, he should indicate his inability to respond and subsequently provide an amended or supplemental bill after obtaining the necessary information. The order was modified to grant the defendants' motions, directing the plaintiff to serve further bills of particulars with reasonable particularity to the specific demands from both defendants within 30 days. The modified order was affirmed.