Masi v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Masi v. Jackson

196 A.D.2d 838, 602 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8581

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 838 (Masi v. Jackson) 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

Masi v. Jackson, 196 A.D.2d 838, 602 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated May 9, 1991, which denied their motion to compel the defendants to accept their supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion to compel the defendants to accept their supplemental bill of particulars. The bill of particulars alleged new injuries and was served after the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Stevens v Dacion Corp., 184 AD2d 377; cf., Skerencak v Fischman, 182 AD2d 1127). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated May 9, 1991, which denied their motion to compel the defendants to accept their supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion to compel the defendants to accept their supplemental bill of particulars. The bill of particulars alleged new injuries and was served after the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Stevens v Dacion Corp., 184 AD2d 377; cf., Skerencak v Fischman, 182 AD2d 1127). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 838, 602 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masi-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack