176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp. v. New York Property Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp. v. New York Property Insurance

125 A.D.2d 653, 510 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62934

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 653 (176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp. v. New York Property Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

176-178 Ashburton Avenue Corp. v. New York Property Insurance, 125 A.D.2d 653, 510 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of a fire insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered March 25, 1986, which denied its motion to vacate the plaintiffs demand for a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the plaintiffs demand for a bill of particulars is vacated.

The plaintiffs 17-page demand for a bill of particulars, consisting of 41 separate paragraphs and at least 170 separate requests for information, was unduly burdensome and oppressive (see, Nazario v Fromchuck, 90 AD2d 483). Many of the requests for information improperly sought names and addresses of witnesses without a showing of special circumstances (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 104 AD2d 482, 484; Nazario v Fromchuck, supra, p 484), discovery and inspection of documents, evidentiary material, and the grounds of the defendant’s legal arguments (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, supra). Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is the vacatur of the demand in its entirety (Nazario v Fromchuck, supra). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In an action to recover damages for breach of a fire insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered March 25, 1986, which denied its motion to vacate the plaintiffs demand for a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the plaintiffs demand for a bill of particulars is vacated.

The plaintiffs 17-page demand for a bill of particulars, consisting of 41 separate paragraphs and at least 170 separate requests for information, was unduly burdensome and oppressive (see, Nazario v Fromchuck, 90 AD2d 483). Many of the requests for information improperly sought names and addresses of witnesses without a showing of special circumstances (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 104 AD2d 482, 484; Nazario v Fromchuck, supra, p 484), discovery and inspection of documents, evidentiary material, and the grounds of the defendant’s legal arguments (see, Ginsberg v Ginsberg, supra). Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is the vacatur of the demand in its entirety (Nazario v Fromchuck, supra). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 653, 510 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/176-178-ashburton-avenue-corp-v-new-york-property-insurance-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack