Draper v. Zamiara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Draper v. Zamiara

126 A.D.2d 941, 511 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42044

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 941 (Draper v. Zamiara) 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

Draper v. Zamiara, 126 A.D.2d 941, 511 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendants’ motion to preclude or to compel plaintiff to furnish a further bill of particulars should have been granted. Plaintiff’s responses to paragraphs 11 through 17 of the demand for bill of particulars are palpably inadequate. Plaintiff is not excused from answering the demands because of his claim that defendants have full knowledge of the facts (see, 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 36:23; Waldman v Allen, 87 AD2d 817; Spencer v Holt, 86 AD2d 981; Le Frois Foods Corp. v Policy Advancing Corp., 59 AD2d 1013). Plaintiff shall be precluded from presenting evidence as to the matters requested in paragraphs 11 through 17 of the demand, unless within 20 days of the entry and service of the order herein, he serves a further bill of particulars adequately responding to the demand. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.— preclusion order.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Defendants’ motion to preclude or to compel plaintiff to furnish a further bill of particulars should have been granted. Plaintiff’s responses to paragraphs 11 through 17 of the demand for bill of particulars are palpably inadequate. Plaintiff is not excused from answering the demands because of his claim that defendants have full knowledge of the facts (see, 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 36:23; Waldman v Allen, 87 AD2d 817; Spencer v Holt, 86 AD2d 981; Le Frois Foods Corp. v Policy Advancing Corp., 59 AD2d 1013). Plaintiff shall be precluded from presenting evidence as to the matters requested in paragraphs 11 through 17 of the demand, unless within 20 days of the entry and service of the order herein, he serves a further bill of particulars adequately responding to the demand. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.— preclusion order.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 941, 511 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/draper-v-zamiara-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack