The following papers numbered 1 to 4 were read on these motions:

There are two motions before the Court. The first is filed by the remaining defendant, 472 Gramatan Owners, Inc. i/s/h/a 472 Gramatan Avenue Owners, Inc. ("Owners"). It brings its motion seeking to strike plaintiff's November 2023 "Supplemental" Bill of Particulars on the ground that it contains entirely new claims. In response, plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to supplement/amend plaintiff's pleadings and to permit plaintiff to serve a Supplemental Bill of Particulars with regard to injuries she sustained.

This accident occurred in September 2018 when the then-79 year old plaintiff was coming back to her apartment building after going to CVS to do an errand. She that alleged a large, heavy box was blocking her entrance to the building. Plaintiff alleged that although she attempted to move the box out of her way, she was unable to do so, and suffered an accident as a result.

Plaintiff filed the Note of Issue in January 2023. She then filed the supplemental Bill of Particulars in November 2023. After these motions were filed, but before they were decided, [*2]plaintiff passed away, in January 2024. The action was stayed so that an administrator could be appointed. That has occurred, and the motions are now ripe for resolution.

A review of the original Bill of Particulars and the November 2023 version shows that the latter includes many alleged injuries that were not in the original version, such as:traumatic brain injury; swelling; right scalp pain; lumbar strain; contusions; right hip pain; right arm pain; bilateral wrist pain; light sensitivity; musculoskeletal pains; bilateral shoulder pain; limited range of motion; and slowed mentation. Plaintiff contends that despite these omissions, there is no prejudice "as Plaintiff Catherine Jones was questioned and testified extensively regarding her medical treatment for the injuries sustained in this accident including those in Plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars including but not limited to undergoing various radiology tests including X-Rays and MRIs, and defendants' physician's report included questioning and examination regarding Plaintiff's brain injury, light sensitivity, cervical and lumbar injuries, among other injuries." The problem with plaintiff's position is that at her deposition, plaintiff mentioned some of these alleged injuries, but not others.

Moreover, there is no report of any doctor submitted to the Court (on these motions or on any other motion). The "physician's report" to which plaintiff's counsel refers is not actually a doctor's report. Instead, it is a report from an "IME Watchdog," who merely took notes on the questions that the doctor asked and the responses that plaintiff gave. There is no analysis, no findings, no measurements — it is simply not a doctor's report. The IME occurred approximately three and a half years after the accident, six months after plaintiff was deposed, and she was not deposed again. She then passed away. There is simply no way that defendant — or the factfinder at trial - can assess whether any of the alleged injuries in the new Bill of Particulars stemmed from the accident at issue.

Accordingly, the Court grants defendant's motion in its entirety and denies plaintiff's motion.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.