Supplemental bill of particulars trial#

Supplemental bill of particulars trial#

Czgier).īefore the Court was a contested discovery proceeding and an contested compulsory accounting proceeding, both involving the activities of the respondent vis the decedent’s assets prior to death.Ī trial was held, at the conclusion of which the Court directed the respondent to account and to turnover to the petitioner all of the decedent’s books and records requested in the petition. 26 (Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, Surr. In re Estate of Joseph DiMattina, New York Law Journal, December 10, 2003, p. Although the fiduciary had the burden of proof on this issue, once this burden was satisfied, the objectants had the burden of coming forward with evidence to establish that the account was inaccurate.Īccordingly, the objectants were directed to supply a supplemental bill of particulars with greater specificity, or risk being precluded from providing any evidence concerning the issues at trial. Further, the Court held that objectants had to supply a list of personalty they claimed was part of the estate. While these responses might only be adequately provided after examination of the fiduciary, the Court determined that objectants had the obligation of stating that to be the case if true. Specifically, the Court noted that one question of the demand was evidentiary in nature and beyond the scope of a bill, while the responses to other demands were so vague and general as to be virtually useless to the petitioner. Upon consideration of the bill of particulars supplied by the objectants, the Court found that while it failed to respond to several of the petitioner’s demands, it was not so defective as to warrant preclusion. The Court opined that an order of preclusion should only be granted under circumstances which demonstrated that a party’s failure to comply with a disclosure order was willful and deliberate. In a contested accounting proceeding, motion was made, inter alia, for an order of preclusion based upon the objectants’ failure to provide an adequate bill of particulars.