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

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 863 (Langner v. Eschwege) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 863, 375 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langner-v-eschwege-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack