Blumenstock v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blumenstock v. General Motors Corp.

88 A.D.2d 607, 450 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16796

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

DecidedMay 10, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 607 (Blumenstock v. General Motors Corp.) 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

Blumenstock v. General Motors Corp., 88 A.D.2d 607, 450 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a wrongful death action, defendant General Motors Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), dated July 8,1981, as denied its motion to preclude the plaintiff from introducing evidence concerning Item Nos. 9 (a-c), 10, 11, 12 (a-b), 13 and 14 of its demand for a bill of particulars, or, in the alternative, to require the plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars. Order modified by deleting the provision which denied appellant’s motion as to Item Nos. 9 (a-c), 10, 11, and 12 (a-b), and substituting a provision granting the motion to the extent of requiring the plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars as to said items. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Plaintiff’s time to serve the further bill is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle in which her husband died after a one-vehicle accident was, inter alia, negligently manufactured and defectively designed. We have reviewed appellant’s demands and the plaintiff’s responses in her bill of particulars and we conclude that the above-numbered responses are conclusory and lack specificity as to alleged defects in material, manufacture and design. The bill of particulars should thus be supplemented as to those demands. We are also [608]*608concerned by the fact that unidentified parts which were allegedly defective have been lost, presumably by plaintiff’s expert. This makes further specifications in the bill of particulars especially appropriate. We thus modify to the extent herein indicated, even though the denial of the motion as to the items concerning the lost parts was without prejudice to renewal once examinations before trial had been completed. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a wrongful death action, defendant General Motors Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), dated July 8,1981, as denied its motion to preclude the plaintiff from introducing evidence concerning Item Nos. 9 (a-c), 10, 11, 12 (a-b), 13 and 14 of its demand for a bill of particulars, or, in the alternative, to require the plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars. Order modified by deleting the provision which denied appellant’s motion as to Item Nos. 9 (a-c), 10, 11, and 12 (a-b), and substituting a provision granting the motion to the extent of requiring the plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars as to said items. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Plaintiff’s time to serve the further bill is extended until 20 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle in which her husband died after a one-vehicle accident was, inter alia, negligently manufactured and defectively designed. We have reviewed appellant’s demands and the plaintiff’s responses in her bill of particulars and we conclude that the above-numbered responses are conclusory and lack specificity as to alleged defects in material, manufacture and design. The bill of particulars should thus be supplemented as to those demands. We are also [608]*608concerned by the fact that unidentified parts which were allegedly defective have been lost, presumably by plaintiff’s expert. This makes further specifications in the bill of particulars especially appropriate. We thus modify to the extent herein indicated, even though the denial of the motion as to the items concerning the lost parts was without prejudice to renewal once examinations before trial had been completed. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 607, 450 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenstock-v-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack