Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
IFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
•X
THERESA ROBINSON and DEREK ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs, Index No.:
717964/2018
- against -
BILL OF PARTICULARS
NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., LONG ISLAND JEWISH
MEDICAL CENTER, DEEPAK NANDA, M.D., P.C., DEEPAK
NANADA, M.D., and EMMANUEL M. PAFOS, M.D.,
Defendants.
X
Plaintiffs THERESA ROBINSON and DEREK ROBINSON, by and through their
attorneys, THE PAGLINAWAN FIRM, P.C., as and for a bill of particulars in response to the
demands of defendant DEEPAK NANDA, M.D., P.C. ("this answering defendant"), state, priorto
any discovery and depositions in this matter, as follows:
1. The dates and times of the day of the alleged negligent acts and/or omissions which will
be alleged against the defendant herein.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N,Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. CL, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A,D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, the negligent acts and omissions of the answering defendant
occurred from December 8, 2015 to April 17, 2016.
2. The location of the alleged negligent acts and/or omissions charged against the
defendant herein.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. CL, Kings Co.), afTd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, this answering Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions
occurred at LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, located at 270-05 76th
Avenue, New Hyde Park, NY 11040.
3. A statement of each and every act of negligence, commission or omission which you will
claim as the basis of the alleged malpractice of the defendant herein.
72 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
[FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PM} INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y,S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680,405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep't 1978). Without
waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this answering, by and
through co-defendant Emmanuel Pafos, departed from good and accepted standards of
care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to
communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to coÂ
defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical,
gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently
recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical
history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c-
section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper
recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor;
negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c-
section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take
her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses'
observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her
condition prenatally and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her
despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal
adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise
her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c-
section.
Further, without waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this
answering, by and through defendant Deepak Nanda, M.D., departed from good and
accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following
respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical
history to co-defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her
medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section;
negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological,
and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history
of prior c-section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper
recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor;
negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c-
section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take
her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses’
observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her
condition prenatally and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her
despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal
adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise
her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c-
section.
4. If it is alleged that the answering defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence, acts,
commissions, or omissions, or omission of others, set forth with respect to each such
act, negligence, commission or omission:
73 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
(FILED": QUEENS COUNTY CLERK "07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
a. The name of the person committing same or if the names are not known, a
physical description sufficient to permit ready identification.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
. particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N,Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, other than the co-defendants Nanda and Pafos and those
whose names appear in the defendants’ medical records, Plaintiffs are not presently
aware of any other person or entity for whom this answering Defendant is claimed to be
vicariously liable.
b. The occupation of each such person and by whom employed.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff'd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, co-defendants Nanda and Pafos and those whose names
appear in the defendants’ medical records are health care providers employed by this
answering defendant.
c. A general statement of the negligent acts and/or omissions allegedly by each
such person; and
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr.of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving the above objections, it wiil be claimed at trial that this answering, by and
through co-defendant Emmanuel Pafos, departed from good and accepted standards of
care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to
communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to coÂ
defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical,
gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently
recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical
history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c-
section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper
recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor;
negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c-
section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take
her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses'
74 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
[FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her
condition prenataily and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her
despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal
adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise
her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c-
section.
Further, without waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this
answering, by and through defendant Deepak Nanda, M.D., departed from good and
accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following
respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical
history to co-defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her
medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section;
negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological,
and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history
of prior c-section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper
recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor;
negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c-
section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take
her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses’
observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her
condition prenataily and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her
despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal
adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise
her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c-
section.
d. The dates and times of day each such negligent act or omission was committed.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v, Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. <& Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, the negligent acts and omissions of such person(s) occurred
from Decembers, 2015 to April 17, 2016.
5. State each and every act or omission which will be claimed as the basis of liability of
each of the other defendants sued herein, stating separately which act or omission will
be the basis of your claim against each or attach a copy of the Bill(s) served pursuant to
their Demand.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. <& Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680,405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
75 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
iFILED: C^ENS COUNTS"CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMi INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
waiving these objections, bill of particulars for each co-defendant will be provided under
a separate cover.
6. State whether or not any claim is made as to improper or defective equipment and if so
identify the equipment and state the defective conditions.
a. If notice is a prerequisite, state whether actual or constructive notice is claimed;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct„ Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in
this matter.
b. If actual notice is claimed, state the time, place and name of the person or
persons to whom such notice Was give;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deflaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y,S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y,S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in
this matter.
c. If constructive notice is claimed, state how long the condition existed.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S,2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr.of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in
this matter.
7. Give a statement of the accepted medical practices, customs and medical standards
which it is claimed were violated/departed from by the answering defendant.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
76 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
[FILED: QUEENS COUNTY~CLERK~07702/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
Patterson v, Jewish Hosp. &Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
8. If it is claimed that the defendant on whose behalf this demand is made failed to perform
his/her professional duties in accordance with any manual, rule, regulation, statues, law
or ordinance, a statement specifying the manual(s), rule(s), reguiation(s), statute(s),
law(s) or ordinance(s) claimed to have been violated with specific citation to title, volume
and page number.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert
testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope
of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t
1998); Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep't
1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405
N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t
1978). Without waiving these objections, at the time of trial, Plaintiffs will take judicial
notice of detail each law, statute, ordinance, rule, and regulation which Plaintiffs will
claim answering defendant violated.
9. If the plaintiff complains that the defendant ignored signs, symptoms, made an
erroneous diagnosis, afforded improper treatment, administered improper and/or
contraindicated drugs in an incorrect dosage, failed to take or administer tests or
improperly took and administered tests, state:
a. The complaints, signs, symptoms that the defendant ignored;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
b. In what respect the diagnosis was erroneous and incorrect, what the claimed
correct diagnosis is, the point in time that the plaintiff claims the defendant should
have made the correct diagnosis;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D,2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
c. The improper treatment that was afforded and in what manner the said treatment
was improperly performed;
77 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
IFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty, Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep't 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff'd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
d. The name of each and every contraindicated drug;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
e. The name of each proper drug allegedly administered incorrectly;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), afTd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
f. The name of each and every test the defendant(s) failed to take or administer;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bili of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
g. The name of each and every test the defendant(s) improperly took or
administered, and the manner in which each said test was improperly taken or
administered.
RESPONSE: Piaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y,S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
78 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
(FILED": QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 "03701 ~PMj INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEP: 07/02/2019
10. If plaintiff claims that defendant improperly performed a physical examination or
performed a contraindicated procedure andlor unnecessary procedure, state:
a. In what manner the physical examination was improperly performed;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N,Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
b. The name of the surgical procedure and the date performed; and,
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
c. In what manner the surgical procedures were improperly performed.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Elienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
11. Each other act or omission not included above which plaintiff will claim constituted
negligence on the part of the defendant.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998);
Heywardv. Elienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A,D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
12. State the following:
a. If it is claimed that any negligence or malpractice occurred prior to plaintiff being
treated by the answering defendant, set forth the name or names of the
individuals it is claimed are responsible for those acts or omissions;
79 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
{FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/0272019 03:01 PM] INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. EJIenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
b. If it is claimed that any negligence or malpractice occurred subsequent to plaintiff
being treated by the answering defendant, set forth the name or names of the
individuals it is claimed are responsible for these acts or omissions and state
specifically what those acts or omissions consisted of.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978).
13. Set forth the dates on which plaintiff sought and received medical treatment with respect
to the injuries claimed, setting forth the names of the doctors, or hospitals rendering
same and their addresses, and the nature of the treatment rendered with specific dates:
a. Prior to the date of the occurrence herein;
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, relevant medical authorizations have been provided under a
separate cover.
b. Subsequent to the date of the occurrence herein.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for
evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony
and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of
particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998);
Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995);
Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194
(Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without
waiving these objections, relevant medical authorizations have been provided under a
separate cover.
14. State the injuries which plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged negligence
and/or medical malpractice of the defendant.
80 of 121
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021
IfTlE
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 IFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS •X THERESA ROBINSON and DEREK ROBINSON, Plaintiffs, Index No.: 717964/2018 - against - BILL OF PARTICULARS NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, DEEPAK NANDA, M.D., P.C., DEEPAK NANADA, M.D., and EMMANUEL M. PAFOS, M.D., Defendants. X Plaintiffs THERESA ROBINSON and DEREK ROBINSON, by and through their attorneys, THE PAGLINAWAN FIRM, P.C., as and for a bill of particulars in response to the demands of defendant DEEPAK NANDA, M.D., P.C. ("this answering defendant"), state, priorto any discovery and depositions in this matter, as follows: 1. The dates and times of the day of the alleged negligent acts and/or omissions which will be alleged against the defendant herein. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N,Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. CL, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A,D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, the negligent acts and omissions of the answering defendant occurred from December 8, 2015 to April 17, 2016. 2. The location of the alleged negligent acts and/or omissions charged against the defendant herein. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. CL, Kings Co.), afTd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, this answering Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions occurred at LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER, located at 270-05 76th Avenue, New Hyde Park, NY 11040. 3. A statement of each and every act of negligence, commission or omission which you will claim as the basis of the alleged malpractice of the defendant herein. 72 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 [FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PM} INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y,S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680,405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep't 1978). Without waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this answering, by and through co-defendant Emmanuel Pafos, departed from good and accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to co defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c- section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor; negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c- section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses' observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her condition prenatally and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c- section. Further, without waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this answering, by and through defendant Deepak Nanda, M.D., departed from good and accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to co-defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c-section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor; negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c- section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses’ observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her condition prenatally and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c- section. 4. If it is alleged that the answering defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence, acts, commissions, or omissions, or omission of others, set forth with respect to each such act, negligence, commission or omission: 73 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 (FILED": QUEENS COUNTY CLERK "07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 a. The name of the person committing same or if the names are not known, a physical description sufficient to permit ready identification. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of . particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N,Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, other than the co-defendants Nanda and Pafos and those whose names appear in the defendants’ medical records, Plaintiffs are not presently aware of any other person or entity for whom this answering Defendant is claimed to be vicariously liable. b. The occupation of each such person and by whom employed. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff'd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, co-defendants Nanda and Pafos and those whose names appear in the defendants’ medical records are health care providers employed by this answering defendant. c. A general statement of the negligent acts and/or omissions allegedly by each such person; and RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr.of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving the above objections, it wiil be claimed at trial that this answering, by and through co-defendant Emmanuel Pafos, departed from good and accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to co defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c- section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor; negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c- section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses' 74 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 [FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her condition prenataily and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c- section. Further, without waiving the above objections, it will be claimed at trial that this answering, by and through defendant Deepak Nanda, M.D., departed from good and accepted standards of care in treating plaintiff Theresa Robinson in the following respects: failing to communicate her complete medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history to co-defendants; failing to appreciate the risk of uterine rupture in light of her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her medical, gynecological, and obstetrical history which included a prior c-section; failing to take heed on her history of prior c-section in determining the plan for labor and delivery; failing to make the proper recommendations to co-defendants to prevent her uterine rupture during labor; negligently causing her bladder injury; negligently causing a delay in performing the c- section on her; failing to sufficiently monitor her during her prenatal period; failing to take her proper obstetrical and gynecological history; failing take heed of the nurses’ observations and notes regarding her condition during labor; failing to follow-up her condition prenataily and during labor; negligently recommending vaginal delivery to her despite her previous history of delivering by c-section; failing to anticipate her abdominal adhesions in light of her past gynecological and obstetrical history; and failing to advise her of the material risks of, benefits of, and alternatives to the vaginal delivery and c- section. d. The dates and times of day each such negligent act or omission was committed. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v, Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. <& Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, the negligent acts and omissions of such person(s) occurred from Decembers, 2015 to April 17, 2016. 5. State each and every act or omission which will be claimed as the basis of liability of each of the other defendants sued herein, stating separately which act or omission will be the basis of your claim against each or attach a copy of the Bill(s) served pursuant to their Demand. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. <& Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680,405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without 75 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 iFILED: C^ENS COUNTS"CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMi INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 waiving these objections, bill of particulars for each co-defendant will be provided under a separate cover. 6. State whether or not any claim is made as to improper or defective equipment and if so identify the equipment and state the defective conditions. a. If notice is a prerequisite, state whether actual or constructive notice is claimed; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct„ Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in this matter. b. If actual notice is claimed, state the time, place and name of the person or persons to whom such notice Was give; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deflaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y,S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y,S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in this matter. c. If constructive notice is claimed, state how long the condition existed. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S,2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr.of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, no claim for improper or defective equipment is being made in this matter. 7. Give a statement of the accepted medical practices, customs and medical standards which it is claimed were violated/departed from by the answering defendant. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998); Heyward v. Ellenvilie Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); 76 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 [FILED: QUEENS COUNTY~CLERK~07702/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 Patterson v, Jewish Hosp. &Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). 8. If it is claimed that the defendant on whose behalf this demand is made failed to perform his/her professional duties in accordance with any manual, rule, regulation, statues, law or ordinance, a statement specifying the manual(s), rule(s), reguiation(s), statute(s), law(s) or ordinance(s) claimed to have been violated with specific citation to title, volume and page number. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep't 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, at the time of trial, Plaintiffs will take judicial notice of detail each law, statute, ordinance, rule, and regulation which Plaintiffs will claim answering defendant violated. 9. If the plaintiff complains that the defendant ignored signs, symptoms, made an erroneous diagnosis, afforded improper treatment, administered improper and/or contraindicated drugs in an incorrect dosage, failed to take or administer tests or improperly took and administered tests, state: a. The complaints, signs, symptoms that the defendant ignored; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). b. In what respect the diagnosis was erroneous and incorrect, what the claimed correct diagnosis is, the point in time that the plaintiff claims the defendant should have made the correct diagnosis; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D,2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). c. The improper treatment that was afforded and in what manner the said treatment was improperly performed; 77 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 IFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 03:01 PMl INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty, Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep't 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff'd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). d. The name of each and every contraindicated drug; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). e. The name of each proper drug allegedly administered incorrectly; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), afTd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). f. The name of each and every test the defendant(s) failed to take or administer; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bili of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). g. The name of each and every test the defendant(s) improperly took or administered, and the manner in which each said test was improperly taken or administered. RESPONSE: Piaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y,S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). 78 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 (FILED": QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/02/2019 "03701 ~PMj INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEP: 07/02/2019 10. If plaintiff claims that defendant improperly performed a physical examination or performed a contraindicated procedure andlor unnecessary procedure, state: a. In what manner the physical examination was improperly performed; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N,Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). b. The name of the surgical procedure and the date performed; and, RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heywardv. Bienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). c. In what manner the surgical procedures were improperly performed. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Elienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). 11. Each other act or omission not included above which plaintiff will claim constituted negligence on the part of the defendant. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Dellaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep't 1998); Heywardv. Elienville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A,D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). 12. State the following: a. If it is claimed that any negligence or malpractice occurred prior to plaintiff being treated by the answering defendant, set forth the name or names of the individuals it is claimed are responsible for those acts or omissions; 79 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 {FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 07/0272019 03:01 PM] INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2019 RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. EJIenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). b. If it is claimed that any negligence or malpractice occurred subsequent to plaintiff being treated by the answering defendant, set forth the name or names of the individuals it is claimed are responsible for these acts or omissions and state specifically what those acts or omissions consisted of. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), aff’d,65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). 13. Set forth the dates on which plaintiff sought and received medical treatment with respect to the injuries claimed, setting forth the names of the doctors, or hospitals rendering same and their addresses, and the nature of the treatment rendered with specific dates: a. Prior to the date of the occurrence herein; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, relevant medical authorizations have been provided under a separate cover. b. Subsequent to the date of the occurrence herein. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this demand as being improper in that it calls for evidentiary material or information in the form of, or to be gleaned from, expert testimony and, therefore, such demand is overly broad, improper and beyond the scope of a bill of particulars. Deliaglio v. Paul, 250 A.D.2d 806,673 N.Y.S.2d 212 (2d Dep’t 1998); Heyward v. Ellenville Cmty. Hosp, 215 A.D.2d967, 627 N.Y.S.2d 167 (3d Dep’t 1995); Patterson v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr of Brooklyn, 94 Misc. 2d 680, 405 N.Y.S.2d 194 (Sup. Ct, Kings Co.), affd, 65 A.D.2d 553, 409 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1978). Without waiving these objections, relevant medical authorizations have been provided under a separate cover. 14. State the injuries which plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged negligence and/or medical malpractice of the defendant. 80 of 121 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/14/2021 04:09 PM INDEX NO. 717964/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/14/2021 IfTlE