New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TULLOCH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-079, Claim No. 107891, Motion Nos. M-67127, CM-67247


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to vacate defendant's demand for a bill of particulars was denied; cross-motion compelling response to bill of particulars was granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-079
Claimant(s):
ALBERT TULLOCH
Claimant short name:
TULLOCH
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107891
Motion number(s):
M-67127
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-67247
Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Albert Tulloch
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Joseph F. Romani, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 7, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is Albert Tulloch's motion for an order vacating defendant's demand for a bill of particulars. Defendant cross-moves for an order compelling claimant to respond to its demand; defendant also seeks sanctions for claimant's failure to respond. In his underlying claim, Mr. Tulloch alleges medical malpractice in connection with the removal of a cyst from his hand at Sullivan Correctional Facility. Claimant argues that he should not be required to respond to defendant's demand for a bill of particulars because defendant's inquiries go to "issues which are clearly specified in the claim, claimant's affidavit, medical reports and photographs . . . attached thereto, and originally filed." See ¶6 of the July 16, 2003 affidavit of Albert Tulloch.

CPLR §3041 provides in relevant part that "[a]ny party may require any other party to give a bill of particulars of such party's claim . . ." Claimant has cited no authority contravening such requirement or providing any kind of exception. Moreover, a bill of particulars has been described as "an amplification of a pleading. It supplies more detail . . ." Siegel, New York Practice §238, p. 382 (3d ed.). Nor has claimant objected at this time to any of the particular items set forth in defendant's demand.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-67127 be denied, that cross-motion no. CM-67247 be granted to the extent that claimant shall respond to defendant's demand for a bill of particulars within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, and such cross-motion shall otherwise be denied.

October 7, 2003
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and unspecified exhibits; and defendant's notice of cross-motion with annexed affirmation.