Board of Education v. Lomasney Combustion, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education v. Lomasney Combustion, Inc.

246 A.D.2d 497, 666 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 143

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 1998·Published

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated November 22, 1996, which denied its motion for a further bill of particulars and to compel the plaintiff to comply with its discovery demands and notices, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated May 12, 1997, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 22, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 12, 1997, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further.

Ordered that the order dated May 12, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of discretion, its determination will not be disturbed (see, Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200). We find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated November 22, 1996, which denied its motion for a further bill of particulars and to compel the plaintiff to comply with its discovery demands and notices, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated May 12, 1997, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 22, 1996, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 12, 1997, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further.

Ordered that the order dated May 12, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of discretion, its determination will not be disturbed (see, Kaplan v Herbstein, 175 AD2d 200). We find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Board of Education v. Lomasney Combustion, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 497, 666 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

246 A.D.2d 497 (Board of Education v. Lomasney Combustion, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related