Ariza v. Baratta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ariza v. Baratta

76 A.D.2d 848, 432 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901

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

DecidedJune 9, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 848 (Ariza v. Baratta) 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

Ariza v. Baratta, 76 A.D.2d 848, 432 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 20, 1979, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate all prior preclusion and dismissal orders against them and required them to serve their bill of particulars. Appeal by defendant John A. Martire dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect. Order affirmed with respect to the other defendants, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs’ time to serve their bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The facts presented herein support a conclusion that Special Term properly exercised its discretion (see Coppolino v K Co., 63 AD2d 957; Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., 46 AD2d 806). Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 20, 1979, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate all prior preclusion and dismissal orders against them and required them to serve their bill of particulars. Appeal by defendant John A. Martire dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect. Order affirmed with respect to the other defendants, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs’ time to serve their bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The facts presented herein support a conclusion that Special Term properly exercised its discretion (see Coppolino v K Co., 63 AD2d 957; Batista v St. Luke’s Hosp., 46 AD2d 806). Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 848, 432 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ariza-v-baratta-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack