Langner v. Eschwege

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langner v. Eschwege

49 A.D.2d 863, 375 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11046

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 28, 1975·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 26, 1974, which granted plaintiffs-respondents’ motion to vacate an order of preclusion and extended their time to serve a bill of particulars, and which denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to plaintiffs-respondents. This matter has been before this court before (39 AD2d 652; 39 AD2d 653). The appeal is limited to narrow issues arising from respondents’ failure to serve a bill of particulars. This is a malpractice action and the situation is analogous to that in Hantman v Goldstricker(M AD2d 54). (See, also, Maglieri v Saks, 33 AD2d 898.) Concur —Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 26, 1974, which granted plaintiffs-respondents’ motion to vacate an order of preclusion and extended their time to serve a bill of particulars, and which denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to plaintiffs-respondents. This matter has been before this court before (39 AD2d 652; 39 AD2d 653). The appeal is limited to narrow issues arising from respondents’ failure to serve a bill of particulars. This is a malpractice action and the situation is analogous to that in Hantman v Goldstricker(M AD2d 54). (See, also, Maglieri v Saks, 33 AD2d 898.) Concur —Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Langner v. Eschwege, 49 A.D.2d 863, 375 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

49 A.D.2d 863 (Langner v. Eschwege) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related