Fal-Mart Fashions, Inc. v. K.F.C. National Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fal-Mart Fashions, Inc. v. K.F.C. National Management Co.

184 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8020

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

DecidedJune 15, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 613 (Fal-Mart Fashions, Inc. v. K.F.C. National Management Co.) 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

Fal-Mart Fashions, Inc. v. K.F.C. National Management Co., 184 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for the loss of merchandise, the defendant K.F.C. National Management Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 23, 1990, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment and granted the plaintiff additional time to respond to a demand for a further bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and to grant the plaintiff additional time to respond to a demand for a further bill of particulars (see, Darrell v Yurchuk, 174 AD2d 557; Vanek v Mercy Hosp., 162 AD2d 680). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for the loss of merchandise, the defendant K.F.C. National Management Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 23, 1990, which denied its motion for partial summary judgment and granted the plaintiff additional time to respond to a demand for a further bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and to grant the plaintiff additional time to respond to a demand for a further bill of particulars (see, Darrell v Yurchuk, 174 AD2d 557; Vanek v Mercy Hosp., 162 AD2d 680). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 613, 587 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fal-mart-fashions-inc-v-kfc-national-management-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack