Caban v. Dime Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caban v. Dime Savings Bank

70 A.D.2d 649, 417 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12099

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

DecidedMay 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 649 (Caban v. Dime Savings Bank) 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

Caban v. Dime Savings Bank, 70 A.D.2d 649, 417 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a wrongful death action, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 25, 1979, as, in effect, denied the appellant’s motion for a further bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The items requested in the demand for a further bill of particulars were evidentiary material not in amplification of a pleading. Such items may not be demanded in a bill of particulars (see Kenler v Weissbach, 61 AD2d 976; Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 AD2d 856), and, therefore, they were palpably improper. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— In a wrongful death action, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 25, 1979, as, in effect, denied the appellant’s motion for a further bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The items requested in the demand for a further bill of particulars were evidentiary material not in amplification of a pleading. Such items may not be demanded in a bill of particulars (see Kenler v Weissbach, 61 AD2d 976; Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 AD2d 856), and, therefore, they were palpably improper. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 649, 417 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caban-v-dime-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack