Anthony v. Tops Supermarket

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anthony v. Tops Supermarket

54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 602 (Anthony v. Tops Supermarket) 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

Anthony v. Tops Supermarket, 54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Following service of defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars in this personal injury action, plaintiff moved to strike certain items on the ground that the information sought was not a proper subject for disclosure as it was evidentiary in nature. We agree. Further, so far as the challenged items seek information as to the nature and cause of the accident, they are repetitious and plaintiff’s responses to the remaining undisputed items in the demand for the bill of particulars, especially paragraph four, suffice to inform defendant of the facts constituting the cause of action. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court&emdash;bill of particulars.) Present&emdash;Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Following service of defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars in this personal injury action, plaintiff moved to strike certain items on the ground that the information sought was not a proper subject for disclosure as it was evidentiary in nature. We agree. Further, so far as the challenged items seek information as to the nature and cause of the accident, they are repetitious and plaintiff’s responses to the remaining undisputed items in the demand for the bill of particulars, especially paragraph four, suffice to inform defendant of the facts constituting the cause of action. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court&emdash;bill of particulars.) Present&emdash;Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-tops-supermarket-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack