The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in striking the action from the trial calendar where plaintiff, without leave of the court, served a supplemental bill of particulars setting forth new injuries after she had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness falsely stating that all medical reports had been exchanged and that disclosure was complete (CPLR 3043 [b]; Fultz v. Benvenuti Props., 155 A.D.2d 794, 796; Arroyo v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 521). Leave for plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill was properly conditioned upon compliance with the court's order directing a further physical examination.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.