Key Takeaway
Court rules special referees lack authority to determine bill of particulars disputes, clarifying the distinction between disclosure procedures and pleading amplification.
In New York civil litigation, the roles and limitations of special referees are carefully defined by statute. Special referees are commonly appointed to oversee disclosure procedures—the formal process by which parties exchange information and evidence before trial. However, a recent Court of Appeals decision has clarified an important boundary: referees cannot make determinations about bills of particulars disputes.
A bill of particulars serves a fundamentally different purpose than typical disclosure devices. While disclosure procedures are designed to uncover new information and evidence, a bill of particulars functions to clarify and amplify the allegations already made in a pleading. This distinction matters because it determines which procedural disputes fall within a special referee’s jurisdiction.
The Flores decision reinforces that courts must carefully distinguish between different types of pre-trial procedures. This clarity helps ensure that motions for summary judgment and other pre-trial matters are handled by the appropriate judicial authority, whether that’s a special referee or the assigned judge.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Flores v New York City Hous. Auth.,
“Since a bill of particulars is not a disclosure device but a means of amplifying a pleading (see id. at 335-336), the present dispute over the contents of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars is not “part of any disclosure procedure” (CPLR 3104) that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise”
This one is interesting.
Key Takeaway
The Court of Appeals has drawn a clear line between disclosure procedures and pleading amplification. Special referees can oversee discovery disputes but cannot resolve disagreements about bills of particulars content. This jurisdictional limitation ensures that different types of pre-trial disputes are handled by the appropriate judicial authority, maintaining procedural clarity in complex litigation.
Related Articles
- Understanding Discovery Rules and Summary Judgment Timing in NY Personal Injury Cases
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- NY EBT Venue Rules: When Courts Grant Undue Hardship Exceptions for Depositions
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
