LoPinto v. Roldos

235 A.D.2d 233, 652 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 84
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 9, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered October 11, 1995, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendants’ second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh affirmative defenses and denied defendants leave to replead, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate such affirmative defenses, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We disagree with the IAS Court that particulars sufficient to give notice of what defendants intend to prove under their defenses cannot be gleaned from the papers on the instant motion (cf., Immediate v St. John’s Queens Hosp., 48 NY2d 671). If needed, further elucidation of the defenses should be sought through a demand for a bill of particulars. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

LoPinto v. Roldos, 235 A.D.2d 233, 652 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 84 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

235 A.D.2d 233 (LoPinto v. Roldos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bull Hill, LLC v. HFZ Member RB Portfolio LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 33276(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
534 East 11th Street Housing Development Fund Corp. v. Hendrick
90 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)