Allstate Insurance v. Butindari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Butindari

27 A.D.2d 653, 276 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4976

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 653 (Allstate Insurance v. Butindari) 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

Allstate Insurance v. Butindari, 27 A.D.2d 653, 276 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order entered November 5, 1965, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, • and the motion for a further bill of particulars is denied. CPLR 3042 (subd. [d]) provides that in the absence of special circumstances, a motion addressed to a defective bill of particulars, either seeking preclusion or directing the service of a further bill, “ shall be made within ten days after the receipt of the bill claimed to be insufficient.” It is clear that this motion was brought beyond such 10-day limitation. There being no special circumstances here, the motion should have been denied. We also hold that the delay in making this motion is not excused by the fact that the bill itself was not timely served. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

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

—Order entered November 5, 1965, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, • and the motion for a further bill of particulars is denied. CPLR 3042 (subd. [d]) provides that in the absence of special circumstances, a motion addressed to a defective bill of particulars, either seeking preclusion or directing the service of a further bill, “ shall be made within ten days after the receipt of the bill claimed to be insufficient.” It is clear that this motion was brought beyond such 10-day limitation. There being no special circumstances here, the motion should have been denied. We also hold that the delay in making this motion is not excused by the fact that the bill itself was not timely served. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 653, 276 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-butindari-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack