Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

155 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 293 (Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & 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

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co., 155 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 8, 1989, which, in relevant part, denied defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A party may be required to particularize an element of his claim or defense on which he bears the burden of proof (Bounds v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 37 AD2d 1008). We see no error in refusing to compel plaintiff to particularize matters which would be elements of a claim grounded on an alternative theory, where plaintiff has never embraced that alternative theory and where such in fact forms the basis of defendant’s first affirmative defense. The trial court has ample power to prevent surprise and prejudice should plaintiff alter his position and later attempt to introduce proof on the alternative theory now abjured (see, CPLR 3042). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 8, 1989, which, in relevant part, denied defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A party may be required to particularize an element of his claim or defense on which he bears the burden of proof (Bounds v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 37 AD2d 1008). We see no error in refusing to compel plaintiff to particularize matters which would be elements of a claim grounded on an alternative theory, where plaintiff has never embraced that alternative theory and where such in fact forms the basis of defendant’s first affirmative defense. The trial court has ample power to prevent surprise and prejudice should plaintiff alter his position and later attempt to introduce proof on the alternative theory now abjured (see, CPLR 3042). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gottlieb-v-kenneth-d-laub-co-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack