Abrams v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center

84 A.D.2d 554, 443 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15625

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 554 (Abrams v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center) 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

Abrams v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, 84 A.D.2d 554, 443 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Richard Allen Lipton appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated March 4,1981, as excused plaintiffs from responding to Item No. 2 in the demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the bill of particulars is to be served as to all items. Plaintiffs’ time to serve the bill of particulars is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made herein, together with notice of entry. Item No. 2 of appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars read as follows: “2. Give a statement of each and every act of omission, or commission, which you will claim is the basis of the alleged malpractice or other wrong doing of this answering d'efendant.” This was a proper demand in accordance with our decision in Horowitz v Saydjari (49 AD2d 760). The demand may be answered with a “[gleneral statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043, subd [a], par [3]; see Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 AD2d 856). Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Richard Allen Lipton appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated March 4,1981, as excused plaintiffs from responding to Item No. 2 in the demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the bill of particulars is to be served as to all items. Plaintiffs’ time to serve the bill of particulars is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made herein, together with notice of entry. Item No. 2 of appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars read as follows: “2. Give a statement of each and every act of omission, or commission, which you will claim is the basis of the alleged malpractice or other wrong doing of this answering d'efendant.” This was a proper demand in accordance with our decision in Horowitz v Saydjari (49 AD2d 760). The demand may be answered with a “[gleneral statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043, subd [a], par [3]; see Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 AD2d 856). Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 554, 443 N.Y.S.2d 277, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-long-island-jewish-hillside-medical-center-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack