Manning v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manning v. City of New York

11 A.D.3d 335, 782 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 335 (Manning v. City of New York) 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

Manning v. City of New York, 11 A.D.3d 335, 782 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered March 6, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as an infant while in the care of a residential treatment facility, granted defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff’s bill of particulars dated December 17, 2002, with leave to plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars properly limited to the scope of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff s bill of particulars alleging no less than six actionable occurrences over a period of no less than six months was properly stricken where the complaint alleges only one occurrence on only one day. We note a prior unappealed order denying a motion by plaintiff to amend the complaint. We decline plaintiffs request to prune the bill. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered March 6, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as an infant while in the care of a residential treatment facility, granted defendants’ motions to strike plaintiff’s bill of particulars dated December 17, 2002, with leave to plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars properly limited to the scope of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff s bill of particulars alleging no less than six actionable occurrences over a period of no less than six months was properly stricken where the complaint alleges only one occurrence on only one day. We note a prior unappealed order denying a motion by plaintiff to amend the complaint. We decline plaintiffs request to prune the bill. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 335, 782 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack