Cummings v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cummings v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center

24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 282

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 233 (Cummings v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center) 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

Cummings v. Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, 24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered February 13, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

The conditional order of preclusion upon which defendants rely required only that plaintiff serve distinguishable bills of particulars responsive to the demands of each defendant; no other deficiencies in plaintiffs bills of particulars were specified. Inasmuch as plaintiff complied with the conditional order by serving distinguishable bills that appropriately amplified the pleadings, and will limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial (see Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529 [1982]), no occasion was presented for the extreme relief sought by defendants. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered February 13, 2004, which, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of costs.

The conditional order of preclusion upon which defendants rely required only that plaintiff serve distinguishable bills of particulars responsive to the demands of each defendant; no other deficiencies in plaintiffs bills of particulars were specified. Inasmuch as plaintiff complied with the conditional order by serving distinguishable bills that appropriately amplified the pleadings, and will limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial (see Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529 [1982]), no occasion was presented for the extreme relief sought by defendants. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 233, 805 N.Y.S.2d 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-our-lady-of-mercy-medical-center-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack