Corning v. Rye Radiology Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corning v. Rye Radiology Associates

194 A.D.2d 760, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6716

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

DecidedJune 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 760 (Corning v. Rye Radiology Associates) 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

Corning v. Rye Radiology Associates, 194 A.D.2d 760, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Roy C. Gumpel and the Rye Medical Center appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered April 16, 1991, as denied their motion to strike stated paragraphs of the plaintiff’s bills of particulars and preclude the [761]*761plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial regarding those items for which particulars were demanded.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs bills of particulars were specific enough and were in conformity with the requirements of CPLR 3043 (a) (3). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants Roy C. Gumpel and the Rye Medical Center appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered April 16, 1991, as denied their motion to strike stated paragraphs of the plaintiff’s bills of particulars and preclude the [761]*761plaintiff from introducing evidence at trial regarding those items for which particulars were demanded.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs bills of particulars were specific enough and were in conformity with the requirements of CPLR 3043 (a) (3). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 760, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corning-v-rye-radiology-associates-nyappdiv-1993.