Johnson v. Coco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Coco

54 A.D.2d 581, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 581 (Johnson v. Coco) 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

Johnson v. Coco, 54 A.D.2d 581, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a contractual obligation, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 23, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion to preclude them from offering evidence as to any matter demanded in Item No. 8 of the defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified, in the interests of justice and in the exercise of discretion, by adding to the decretal provision thereof the following: "unless plaintiffs serve a supplemental bill of particulars upon the defendants in response to item 8 of their demand, in which event the motion is denied”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiffs’ time to serve the supplemental bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be entered hereon. In our opinion, the modification will serve the interests of justice. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Damiani and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful interference with a contractual obligation, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 23, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion to preclude them from offering evidence as to any matter demanded in Item No. 8 of the defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified, in the interests of justice and in the exercise of discretion, by adding to the decretal provision thereof the following: "unless plaintiffs serve a supplemental bill of particulars upon the defendants in response to item 8 of their demand, in which event the motion is denied”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiffs’ time to serve the supplemental bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be entered hereon. In our opinion, the modification will serve the interests of justice. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Damiani and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 581, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-coco-nyappdiv-1976.