From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ryan v. Beavers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

In Ryan v. Beavers, 170 A.D.2d 1045 (4th Dept 1991), the Fourth Department precluded defendants from presenting proof with respect to their article 16 apportionment defense unless defendants served a responsive bill of particulars.

Summary of this case from Maria E. v. 599 West Associates

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Hand, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted, in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court correctly found that the CPLR article 16 affirmative defense of defendants Martinez and Speilberg does not apply to plaintiff's cause of action for wrongful death, which involves economic loss (see, CPLR 1600, 1601). However, for three reasons the court erred in holding that defendants need not provide a bill of particulars with respect to that defense to a second cause of action. First, defendants Martinez and Speilberg are bound by their stipulation, which was reduced to an order, to provide a bill of particulars responsive to plaintiff's demands (see, Citizens Fid. Bank Trust Co. v Coulston Intl. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 1110). Second, defendants' failure to move for a protective order precludes inquiry into the propriety of plaintiff's demand, unless the demand is palpably improper or involves privileged matter, which is not the case here (see, Sprague v International Business Machs. Corp., 114 A.D.2d 1025; Lazan v Bellin, 95 A.D.2d 751). Third, defendants must provide a responsive bill of particulars with respect to their third affirmative defenses because they bear the burden of proof under CPLR 1603, as the parties seeking to limit their liability; it is well settled that a party must provide a bill of particulars on matters on which he bears the burden of proof (see, Siegel, N Y Prac § 238, at 292). Accordingly, defendants Martinez and Speilberg are precluded from presenting proof with respect to their third affirmative defenses unless they provide a responsive bill of particulars within 30 days of service of this order.


Summaries of

Ryan v. Beavers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

In Ryan v. Beavers, 170 A.D.2d 1045 (4th Dept 1991), the Fourth Department precluded defendants from presenting proof with respect to their article 16 apportionment defense unless defendants served a responsive bill of particulars.

Summary of this case from Maria E. v. 599 West Associates
Case details for

Ryan v. Beavers

Case Details

Full title:GRACE RYAN, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of GEORGE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 112

Citing Cases

Marsala v. Weinraub

As noted above, CPLR 1601 (1) clearly provides that whenever the liability of a defendant is found to be 50%…

Maria E. v. 599 West Associates

In Ryan v. Beavers, 170 A.D.2d 1045 (4th Dept 1991), the Fourth Department precluded defendants from…