Kapinos v. Alvarado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapinos v. Alvarado

114 A.D.2d 936, 495 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53978

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 936 (Kapinos v. Alvarado) 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

Kapinos v. Alvarado, 114 A.D.2d 936, 495 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeals are from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Benson, J.), dated May 25, 1984, as denied that branch of plaintiffs’ motion which sought leave to serve an amended and supplemental bill of particulars with respect to item 3 of the original bill, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 2, 1984 as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Appeals from the orders dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements.

As subsequent orders have granted appellants the relief they seek, the issue is moot. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeals are from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Benson, J.), dated May 25, 1984, as denied that branch of plaintiffs’ motion which sought leave to serve an amended and supplemental bill of particulars with respect to item 3 of the original bill, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 2, 1984 as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Appeals from the orders dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements.

As subsequent orders have granted appellants the relief they seek, the issue is moot. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 936, 495 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapinos-v-alvarado-nyappdiv-1985.