![]() It is uncontested that the three-year statute of limitations applies to plaintiff's personal injury action (NYSCEF doc No. Excel also argues the relation-back doctrine is inapplicable as Excel's interests are not aligned with those of Defendants in this action. Excel, in opposition, argues that Plaintiff had numerous opportunities throughout the last few years to bring this motion, and that despite Plaintiff's contentions regarding delay in discovery, Excel produced various documents within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also asks that Excel be equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff also argues that the "relation-back" doctrine applies here, and Excel is liable as a direct defendant and not just as a third-party defendant. Plaintiff claims that under CPLR 203(f), he is allowed leave to add Excel as a direct defendant because Excel was originally served as a third-party defendant within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff only recently obtained all requested discovery, including its contracts, work records, maintenance information, and insurance information. Plaintiff alleges that as it only just learned the full extent of Excel's responsibilities regarding the subject elevator, he was left with no choice but to bring this motion after the statute of limitations to add a party expired. Excel did not comply with various court orders compelling disclosure, so the discovery process stretched well into 2019 ( id. During discovery, Plaintiff served various demands on Excel for maintenance records of the elevator. During this time, Plaintiff was under the impression that Excel could not be liable for the accident as the subject elevator was inspected very rarely ( id. The City impleaded Excel, the maintenance company in charge of oversight of the incident elevator, as a third-party defendant in June 2016 (NYSCEF doc No. ("Volmar"), after Plaintiff suffered an accident after falling in an elevator shaft at a construction site at a public school in Brooklyn. This motion stems from an action commenced by Plaintiff on May 15, 2015, against Defendants City of New City ("the City") and Volmar Construction, Inc. ![]() Plaintiff alternatively moves for the same under CPLR 3025(b) and 1003. ![]() ("Excel") as a direct defendant and to serve the Proposed Supplemental Summons and Amended Verified Complaint on that party. In this Labor Law action, Plaintiff James Kostulias moves, pursuant to CPLR 203(f), for leave to add Third-Party Defendant Excel Elevator & Escalator Corp. The closest modern equivalent, though rarely used, is the motion for more definite statement.Motion Sequence 004 CAROL R. A bill of particulars, however, once submitted, confines the pleader to any causes of action or defenses in the bill. It has been observed, however, that the motion for a bill of particulars may have strategic advantages over a § 2-615 motion, because the latter, even where successful, usually results in the plaintiff being given an opportunity to refile. In Illinois, for instance, it is more common for defendants to file a motion to dismiss under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure § 2-615, claiming the pleaded facts to be insufficient to support the causes of action alleged. states, like New York, Illinois, California (CCP 454), and Virginia, use the bill of particulars, and even there motions for a bill of particulars may be disfavored or disused. state law, the bill of particulars was abolished in nearly all court systems in the 1940s and 1950s due to the widespread recognition that much of the information requested could be obtained more efficiently through the discovery process. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in rule 7(f) that "the court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars". In civil cases, a bill of particulars is a pleading, which "amplifies" the complaint, but can also act as a discovery device or tool. An insufficient response to a request for a bill of particulars may be grounds for dismissal of the claim, or other sanctions against the responding party. It is not entirely clear whether this can be done in practice in Britain on the Allocation questionnaire. It is rarely used in American small claims cases. In a civil action such as a tort or breach of contract case, either attorney or party can request it. ![]() This request may be part of an omnibus motion, motion in limine, or similar motion. However, prosecuting attorneys cannot request the same of the defense. In criminal law, defense attorneys may file a motion requesting a bill of particulars from prosecuting attorneys. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |