| Maraviglia v Lokshina |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09624 [68 AD3d 1066] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Joan Maraviglia et al., Respondents, v Irina Lokshina etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] John L. Juliano, P.C., East Northport, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal, aslimited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan,J.), dated April 17, 2009, as denied that branch of their motion which was to strike certainportions of the plaintiffs' fourth supplemental bill of particulars.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was tostrike certain portions of the plaintiffs' fourth supplemental bill of particulars, including theparticulars of certain injuries, surgeries, and hospitalizations. Pursuant to CPLR 3043 (b), aplaintiff may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing "continuing special damages anddisabilities" without leave of the court if it alleges "no new cause of action . . . ornew injury." Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to allege continuing consequences of the injuriessuffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, thebill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars (see Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84,87 [1983]; Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 798, 800 [2008];Ray v Alpha Omega Dev. Co., 287 AD2d 446 [2001]; Pauling v Glickman, 232AD2d 465, 466 [1996]), rather than an amended or new bill of particulars. Furthermore, thefourth supplemental bill of particulars was served more than 30 days prior to the rescheduleddate of trial, and there was no showing of prejudice to the defendants (see Fortunato vPersonal Woman's Care, P.C., 31 AD3d 370, 371 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall andSgroi, JJ., concur.