Butler v. Carfagna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. Carfagna

32 A.D.3d 1229, 820 N.Y.S.2d 829

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1229 (Butler v. Carfagna) 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

Butler v. Carfagna, 32 A.D.3d 1229, 820 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[1230]*1230Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Peter J. Notar o, J.), entered June 2, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Vincent Carfagna, M.D. and that part of the motion of defendant Kathleen A. Kelly, M.D. seeking an order compelling plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Vincent Carfagna, M.D. and that part of the motion of defendant Kathleen A. Kelly, M.D. seeking an order compelling plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars. Plaintiffs responses to defendants’ demands provide a “[g]eneral statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043 [a] [3]), and the responses provide sufficient information to enable defendants to conduct depositions and prepare their defenses (see Graves v County of Albany, 278 AD2d 578 [2000]; cf. Hayes v Kearney, 237 AD2d 769, 770 [1997]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.

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

[1230]*1230Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Peter J. Notar o, J.), entered June 2, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Vincent Carfagna, M.D. and that part of the motion of defendant Kathleen A. Kelly, M.D. seeking an order compelling plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion of defendant Vincent Carfagna, M.D. and that part of the motion of defendant Kathleen A. Kelly, M.D. seeking an order compelling plaintiff to provide a further bill of particulars. Plaintiffs responses to defendants’ demands provide a “[g]eneral statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed” (CPLR 3043 [a] [3]), and the responses provide sufficient information to enable defendants to conduct depositions and prepare their defenses (see Graves v County of Albany, 278 AD2d 578 [2000]; cf. Hayes v Kearney, 237 AD2d 769, 770 [1997]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 1229, 820 N.Y.S.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-carfagna-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack