Plaintiff failed to do so, and did not seek an extension of time or otherwise seek relief. Supreme Court conditionally granted the motion on February 21, 2007, stating Plaintiff would be barred from introducing evidence of the Defendant’s negligence if Plaintiff did not serve the supplemental Bill of Particulars within 45 days. Vinces moved to compel in June 2006 and, upon service of the bill of particulars in August 2006, withdrew the pending motion. The November 2006 Preliminary Conference Order directed Plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars within 30 days upon Plaintiff’s failure to do so, in January 2007, Dr Vinces moved to strike pursuant to CPLR 3126. Plaintiff failed to reply to either letter. Two additional letters demanding compliance followed on March 21 st and May 26 th. Significantly, the Gibbs Court observed that Plaintiff did not respond to any letter and did not request an extension of time to respond to the demands. Dr. Vinces sent plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting compliance within 10 days, and another letter requesting compliance with some other outstanding discovery. Vinces served an answer and discovery demands. When no response followed, defense counsel for Dr.
![supplemental bill of particulars supplemental bill of particulars](https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6234/6325383649_7018838355_b.jpg)
The factual background is straight forward. In June 2005, Gibbs commenced a medical malpractice action against the Hospital and, inter alia, Dr. For these reasons, it is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that “f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity”. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. It provides additional guidance (and fodder) to counter non-cooperation, and the Court’s frustration is palpable:
![supplemental bill of particulars supplemental bill of particulars](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/nykianbop-130624030123-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg)
09198 (2010) reversing a Supreme Court decision which refused to strike a pleading upon violation of the terms of a conditional order of preclusion. As per the authority cited in the January column, the result in Gibbs is hardly an anomaly yet, Gibbs is significant for the Court’s recognition of the frustration that all members of the bar, litigants and the public encounter in response to “chronic” non-compliance.
![supplemental bill of particulars supplemental bill of particulars](https://d20ohkaloyme4g.cloudfront.net/img/document_thumbnails/eb8bfb85193a3a757fc9f31d991e8426/thumb_1200_1553.png)
![supplemental bill of particulars supplemental bill of particulars](https://s3.studylib.net/store/data/025226175_1-d4db59313b1b05ec1a5161082f71de0d.png)
In December, the Court of Appeals issued Gibbs v. In a recent column, we addressed recent Appellate Division authority concerning the ultimate sanction for failure to disclose, a CPLR 3126 Order striking a pleading.