Hughs v. Gold
This text of 125 A.D.2d 366 (Hughs v. Gold) 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.
Opinion
— In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, Eileen T. Gold appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated November 21, 1985, which denied her motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s bill of particulars as nonresponsive.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff’s responses to the appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars are sufficiently responsive under the circumstances of this case (see, Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 AD2d 856; Patterson v Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center, 94 Misc 2d 680; affd 65 AD2d 553). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 A.D.2d 366, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughs-v-gold-nyappdiv-1986.