Miller v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Kahn

38 A.D.2d 850, 330 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 850 (Miller v. Kahn) 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

Miller v. Kahn, 38 A.D.2d 850, 330 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 22, 1971, which denied their motion to vacate and strike plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified by striking therefrom the words “ in all respects ” and adding thereto, immediately after the provision that the motion is “ denied ”, the following: “ to the extent that defendants shall furnish a bill of particulars setting forth: (1) what acts or omissions defendants claim -constituted negligence on the part of the deceased infant contributing to the happening of the accident; and (2) the names and addresses of all witnesses obtained at the scene of the accident; and that the motion is otherwise granted.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the particulars granted should not have exceeded the scope of the items above mentioned. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 22, 1971, which denied their motion to vacate and strike plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified by striking therefrom the words “ in all respects ” and adding thereto, immediately after the provision that the motion is “ denied ”, the following: “ to the extent that defendants shall furnish a bill of particulars setting forth: (1) what acts or omissions defendants claim -constituted negligence on the part of the deceased infant contributing to the happening of the accident; and (2) the names and addresses of all witnesses obtained at the scene of the accident; and that the motion is otherwise granted.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion the particulars granted should not have exceeded the scope of the items above mentioned. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 850, 330 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-kahn-nyappdiv-1972.