Finkel v. Katz

Theodore Finkel (plaintiff) was injured while on a sidewalk when he was struck by a Cadillac that collided with a car owned by Hocage Taxi (defendant). Finkel sued the owners and the drivers of the taxi and the Cadillac (defendants). Firkatian, the taxi driver, then brought a third-party complaint against General Motors (GM) (defendant), which had manufactured the Cadillac, and others (defendants). Finkel then added GM as a defendant. GM asked Finkel for a bill of particulars identifying any allegedly defective part, the nature of each alleged defect, and the manner in which each alleged defect contributed to the accident. Finkel’s response stated that the Cadillac’s braking or acceleration system or both were defective and failed to properly or adequately slow or stop the Cadillac (or both) and that the Cadillac’s acceleration pedal stuck when depressed. Finkel further averred that that the depressed accelerator pedal contributed to the accident. Citing a lack of sufficient detail, GM moved, among other things, for a preclusion order or to require Finkel to serve a more detailed bill of particulars. After Finkel’s attorney responded that Finkel had no further knowledge, GM suggested that Finkel serve an amended bill of particulars stating that had no additional knowledge but would further amend the bill if he obtained more relevant knowledge. Finkel ignored GM’s suggestion. The supreme court granted other aspects of GM’s motion but did not address GM’s request regarding the bill of particulars, thus implicitly denying GM’s motion on that score. GM appealed.