Minoff v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minoff v. Levine

16 A.D.2d 980, 230 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8964

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

DecidedJune 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 980 (Minoff v. Levine) 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

Minoff v. Levine, 16 A.D.2d 980, 230 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting when plaintiff fell on a private walk leading to defendants’ premises, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1962, which denied their motion, made pursuant to rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice: (1) to preclude plaintiff from giving evidence at the trial with respect to the particulars demanded by defendants; or (2) to direct plaintiff to serve a complete bill of particulars. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to items 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the demand. Such bill is to be served within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. Plaintiff’s original bill was wholly inadequate. He failed to supply any specific information in response to item 3; and as to the other items mentioned he made no response at all. The information sought is essential for the proper defense of the action. In the interests of justice, plaintiff should be required to serve a supplemental bill of particulars so that a complete pretrial disclosure may be had. Under all the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the supplemental bill because of the delay in making the motion therefor. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, 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 personal injuries resulting when plaintiff fell on a private walk leading to defendants’ premises, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1962, which denied their motion, made pursuant to rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice: (1) to preclude plaintiff from giving evidence at the trial with respect to the particulars demanded by defendants; or (2) to direct plaintiff to serve a complete bill of particulars. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to items 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the demand. Such bill is to be served within 30 days after entry of the order hereon. Plaintiff’s original bill was wholly inadequate. He failed to supply any specific information in response to item 3; and as to the other items mentioned he made no response at all. The information sought is essential for the proper defense of the action. In the interests of justice, plaintiff should be required to serve a supplemental bill of particulars so that a complete pretrial disclosure may be had. Under all the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the supplemental bill because of the delay in making the motion therefor. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 980, 230 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minoff-v-levine-nyappdiv-1962.