Mardiros v. Ghaly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mardiros v. Ghaly

175 A.D.2d 680

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1991

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 680 (Mardiros v. Ghaly) 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

Mardiros v. Ghaly, 175 A.D.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

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

— 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mardiros-v-ghaly-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack