Larghi Construction Co. v. Suffern Knolls, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Larghi Construction Co. v. Suffern Knolls, Inc.

30 A.D.2d 975, 295 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 975 (Larghi Construction Co. v. Suffern Knolls, Inc.) 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

Larghi Construction Co. v. Suffern Knolls, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 975, 295 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants Suffern Knolls Inc. and Franklin Homes Inc. from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 19, 1968, which denied a motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. (Appeal insofar as taken by defendants Mellen and Shaffer has been abandoned.) Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to (1) strike out of the decretal paragraph thereof the words “in all respects” and (2) substitute therefor the following: “ granted, to the extent that item 1 of the demand is deleted and items 2(c) and 3(d) thereof are amended so as to substitute the word ‘approximate’ for 'exact’ and that the motion is otherwise” [denied]. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Item 1 demands particularization of certain payments which are admitted in the pleadings; it therefore is unnecessary. Items 2(c) and 3(d) demand the “exact location” of certain conditions and work; the “ approximate location ” is all that need be furnished. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants Suffern Knolls Inc. and Franklin Homes Inc. from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 19, 1968, which denied a motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. (Appeal insofar as taken by defendants Mellen and Shaffer has been abandoned.) Order modified, on the law and the facts, so as to (1) strike out of the decretal paragraph thereof the words “in all respects” and (2) substitute therefor the following: “ granted, to the extent that item 1 of the demand is deleted and items 2(c) and 3(d) thereof are amended so as to substitute the word ‘approximate’ for 'exact’ and that the motion is otherwise” [denied]. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Item 1 demands particularization of certain payments which are admitted in the pleadings; it therefore is unnecessary. Items 2(c) and 3(d) demand the “exact location” of certain conditions and work; the “ approximate location ” is all that need be furnished. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 975, 295 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larghi-construction-co-v-suffern-knolls-inc-nyappdiv-1968.