Caudill v. Ferrando

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caudill v. Ferrando

290 A.D.2d 845, 736 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 549

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 845 (Caudill v. Ferrando) 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

Caudill v. Ferrando, 290 A.D.2d 845, 736 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered November 22, 2000 in Franklin County, which, inter alia, denied a motion by defendant Adirondack Medical Center to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a prior order.

In view of the fact that plaintiff furnished defendant Adirondack Medical Center with a facially sufficient bill of particulars during the pendency of the present motion and considering that no conditional order was ever issued against plaintiff, we are not persuaded that Supreme Court abused its broad discretion in refusing to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal (see, Ashline v Kestner Engrs., 219 AD2d 788, 790; Matter of Landrigen v Landrigen, 173 AD2d 1011, 1012). Any objections that Adirondack may have to plaintiff’s June 16, 2000 second supplemental amended bill of particulars may be addressed in a further motion.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered November 22, 2000 in Franklin County, which, inter alia, denied a motion by defendant Adirondack Medical Center to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with a prior order.

In view of the fact that plaintiff furnished defendant Adirondack Medical Center with a facially sufficient bill of particulars during the pendency of the present motion and considering that no conditional order was ever issued against plaintiff, we are not persuaded that Supreme Court abused its broad discretion in refusing to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal (see, Ashline v Kestner Engrs., 219 AD2d 788, 790; Matter of Landrigen v Landrigen, 173 AD2d 1011, 1012). Any objections that Adirondack may have to plaintiff’s June 16, 2000 second supplemental amended bill of particulars may be addressed in a further motion.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 845, 736 N.Y.S.2d 283, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caudill-v-ferrando-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack