Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold

5 A.D.3d 443, 772 N.Y.S.2d 592

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 443 (Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold) 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

Kristina Denise Enterprises, Inc. v. Arnold, 5 A.D.3d 443, 772 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for accounting malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 17, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel them to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars and to comply with certain additional demands for disclosure.

[444]*444Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham, 284 AD2d 518 [2001]; see Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars and certain additional demands for disclosure. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for accounting malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 17, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel them to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars and to comply with certain additional demands for disclosure.

[444]*444Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham, 284 AD2d 518 [2001]; see Mattocks v White Motor Corp., 258 AD2d 628, 629 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to respond to a demand for a bill of particulars and certain additional demands for disclosure. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 443, 772 N.Y.S.2d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristina-denise-enterprises-inc-v-arnold-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack