Opinion
September 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion to compel the defendants to accept their supplemental bill of particulars. The bill of particulars alleged new injuries and was served after the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Stevens v Dacion Corp., 184 A.D.2d 377; cf., Skerencak v Fischman, 182 A.D.2d 1127). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.