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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 21, 1984·No. Appeal No. 2·Published

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] possible 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] possible 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.

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

104 A.D.2d 727 (Fuller v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related