Mausler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mausler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Inc.

59 A.D.2d 700, 398 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 700 (Mausler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Inc.) 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

Mausler v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Inc., 59 A.D.2d 700, 398 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, [701]*701the defendant hospital appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 18, 1977, as granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought leave to serve a bill of particulars upon it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the said branch of the motion is denied. It was an abuse of discretion to permit a further bill of particulars to be served 10 years after the service of the first bill of particulars. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, 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 medical malpractice and wrongful death, [701]*701the defendant hospital appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 18, 1977, as granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought leave to serve a bill of particulars upon it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the said branch of the motion is denied. It was an abuse of discretion to permit a further bill of particulars to be served 10 years after the service of the first bill of particulars. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 700, 398 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mausler-v-health-insurance-plan-of-greater-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1977.