Legal Opinion
Maraviglia v. Lokshina
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 22, 2009PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1067The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to strike certain portions of the plaintiffs’ fourth supplemental bill of particulars, including the particulars of certain injuries, surgeries, and hospitalizations. Pursuant to CPLR 3043 (b), a plaintiff may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing “continuing special damages and disabilities” without leave of the court if it alleges “no new cause of action ... or new injury.” Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tate v. ColabelloNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Pauling v. GlickmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Shahid v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Fortunato v. Personal Woman's Care, P.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Ray v. Alpha Omega Development Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
3Cited by4 opinions
- Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Witherspoon v. Surat Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Nieto v. DeveauCivil Court of the City of New York · 2016