Fuller v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

104 A.D.2d 727, 480 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20150

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1984

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.2d 727 (Fuller v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Fuller v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 104 A.D.2d 727, 480 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to renew their demand for a bill of particulars. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars. The demand is overbroad and improperly seeks evidentiary material (see Bonafede v Stevens Buick-Cadillac, 90 AD2d 690); names of [728]*728possible witnesses (see Frequency Electronics v We’re Assoc. Co., 90 AD2d 822); and matters on which plaintiffs have the burden of proof (see New England Seafoods v Travelers Cos., 84 AD2d 676). Because of the large number of improper demands and the fact that they are commingled in the same paragraphs yuth proper ones, we vacate the entire demand. (See Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529.) (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, De Pasquale, J. — discovery.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to renew their demand for a bill of particulars. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant’s motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars. The demand is overbroad and improperly seeks evidentiary material (see Bonafede v Stevens Buick-Cadillac, 90 AD2d 690); names of [728]*728possible witnesses (see Frequency Electronics v We’re Assoc. Co., 90 AD2d 822); and matters on which plaintiffs have the burden of proof (see New England Seafoods v Travelers Cos., 84 AD2d 676). Because of the large number of improper demands and the fact that they are commingled in the same paragraphs yuth proper ones, we vacate the entire demand. (See Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529.) (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, De Pasquale, J. — discovery.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 727, 480 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack