Mardiros v. Ghaly
175 A.D.2d 680
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1991·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiff’s responses to designated items in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars were sufficient. The court’s order denying defendants’ motion for reargument is not appealable (see, Fahey v County of Nassau, 111 AD2d 214). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Baisley, J. — Preclusion Order.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mardiros v. Ghaly, 175 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).
175 A.D.2d 680 (Mardiros v. Ghaly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Evans v. Senkowski
228 F. Supp. 2d 254 (E.D. New York, 2002)
Weichert v. Kimber
249 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Mardiros v. Ghaly
175 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)