Guilizio v. Rios

14 Misc. 2d 513, 184 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2565
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 8, 1958
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Misc. 2d 513 (Guilizio v. Rios) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Guilizio v. Rios, 14 Misc. 2d 513, 184 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2565 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Opinion

James S. Brown, J.

In this negligence action defendant Moniger moves to preclude or, in the alternative, for a further bill as to item second (c) of the bill of particulars and to strike the reservation clause appearing at the end thereof.

Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion is without merit. Paragraph ‘ ‘ sixth ’ ’ of the complaint describes, among other things, an alleged negligent condition 11 on each step ” of the stairway, [514]*514and defendant is entitled to know what particular step plaintiff will claim, at the trial, caused her to fall. Our courts generally treat these applications with a degree of liberality favoring particularization.

Defendants’ tardiness of one month in bringing on this motion is excused and the excuse given accepted by the court as being within the realm of special circumstances ” enunciated in subdivision (d) of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Curtis v. Curtis, 178 Misc. 213). Furthermore, since the papers indicate that plaintiff served her bill one and one-half years after the demand, it ill behooves her to complain of a four-week delay.

Accordingly, the motion is granted as to item second (c). Plaintiff shall serve a further bill within 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein with notice of entry.

Defendants’ objection to the reservation clause has merit. Its inclusion at the end of plaintiff’s bill of particulars frustrates the very purpose and intendment for which a bill is required (Manufacturers & Dealers Motor Underwriters v. Fire Brokers’ Assn., 186 App. Div. 762). The clause is stricken.

Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Watrous v. Harris
71 Misc. 2d 63 (New York Supreme Court, 1972)
Dusing v. Rosasco
31 Misc. 2d 825 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Misc. 2d 513, 184 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilizio-v-rios-nysupct-1958.