In Carter v. The State of New York, No. 144077, 2026 WL 3167612 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. July 13, 2026), the court discussed the subtle, yet potentially crucial, difference between an “amended” and “supplemental” bill of Particulars in New York practice.
In sum, this claim arises from an April 2025 motor vehicle accident between the claimant and a state employee. Claimants served the State with a verified bill of particulars in which they identified right ankle and foot fractures, and a right ankle surgery, as some of the pertinent injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
Thereafter, claimants served the State with a document titled “Supplemental Verified Bill of Particulars” in which they allege that claimant subsequently (in October) suffered a fall at her home when her right ankle gave out during ordinary ambulation on the front porch due to a weakened ankle originating from the motor vehicle accident, and that the claimant suffered fractures to her right humerus (upper arm) and right tibial plateau (knee area), and underwent surgeries for both injuries.
The state seeks to strike the Supplemental BP, arguing that claimants are attempting to assert a new cause of action and injuries, which they cannot do without providing a reasonable excuse for the delay, and expert medical proof demonstrating that subsequent fall was caused by the earlier/subject accident. Claimants oppose, arguing that they properly supplemented the BP to include injuries that are continuing consequences of injuries listed in the original BOP, and they did so more than 30 days before any yet-to-be-scheduled trial.
The court agreed with the State, holding that amendment, not supplementation, was the proper course:
The injuries in the Supplemental BP are new injuries and the proper mechanism to include these injuries in a bill of particulars is to do so by amendment, not supplement. The Court does not accept Claimants’ argument that the subsequent injuries to claimant’s arm and knee are continuing injuries, or the natural sequelae of the ankle injuries occurring in April. The October injuries resulted from a separate fall and affected completely separate body parts than those allegedly injured in the April accident.
(Cleaned up.)
As support for its conclusion, the court cited CPLR 3043(b), which provides that “no new cause of action may be alleged or new injury claimed” in a supplemental bill of particulars.
That said, the court concluded that claimants “have the right to assert these new injuries at this stage in the case through an amended bill of particulars pursuant to CPLR 3042 (b),” noting that a Bill of Particulars “may be amended once as of right at any time up to the filing of the note of issue” and that here, no note of issue has been filed, there is not trial scheduled, and claimants have not previously amended their BP.