Knibestol v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knibestol v. Perez

37 A.D.2d 840, 325 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 840 (Knibestol v. Perez) 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

Knibestol v. Perez, 37 A.D.2d 840, 325 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendants Brookhattan Utilities, Inc., and Anthony Daehille appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 8, 1971, as, on reargument, adhered to the original decision directing that said defendants furnish plaintiff with a supplemental bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements. If appellants are not in possession of the particulars sought, they may so state; and they may likewise state that they intend to rely upon the proof adduced by plaintiff’s witnesses on the issues of contributory negligence (Dunson v. Kirtland, 235 App. Div. 854; Heddy v. Dairymen’s League Co-op. Assn., 242 App. Div. 687; Anton v. Boal, 270 App. Div. 1035; Pascale v. City of New York, 277 App. Div. 1004). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, 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 death and conscious pain and suffering, defendants Brookhattan Utilities, Inc., and Anthony Daehille appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 8, 1971, as, on reargument, adhered to the original decision directing that said defendants furnish plaintiff with a supplemental bill of particulars. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements. If appellants are not in possession of the particulars sought, they may so state; and they may likewise state that they intend to rely upon the proof adduced by plaintiff’s witnesses on the issues of contributory negligence (Dunson v. Kirtland, 235 App. Div. 854; Heddy v. Dairymen’s League Co-op. Assn., 242 App. Div. 687; Anton v. Boal, 270 App. Div. 1035; Pascale v. City of New York, 277 App. Div. 1004). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 840, 325 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knibestol-v-perez-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack