Morris Erbesh, NNE, Inc. v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris Erbesh, NNE, Inc. v. Schwartz

21 A.D.3d 532, 799 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 532 (Morris Erbesh, NNE, Inc. v. Schwartz) 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

Morris Erbesh, NNE, Inc. v. Schwartz, 21 A.D.3d 532, 799 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered October 12, 2004, which denied their motion, among other things, to strike the answer or compel the defendants to comply with the demand for a bill of particulars and notice to produce.

[533]*533Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion because the plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars and notice to produce were “palpably improper” (see Hillside Equities v UFH Apts., 297 AD2d 704, 705 [2002]; Harrell v County of Nassau, 227 AD2d 590, 591 [1996]; Coleman v Richards, 138 AD2d 556 [1988]; Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 104 AD2d 482 [1984]). The Supreme Court was not required to prune the plaintiffs’ improper demands (see Haszinger v Praver, 12 AD3d 485, 486 [2004]; Posh Pillows v Hawes, 138 AD2d 472 [1988]; Simpson Elec. Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 130 AD2d 738 [1987]; Benzenberg v Telecom Plus of Upstate N.Y., 119 AD2d 717 [1986]; Jonassen v A.M.F., Inc., 104 AD2d 484, 486 [1984]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered October 12, 2004, which denied their motion, among other things, to strike the answer or compel the defendants to comply with the demand for a bill of particulars and notice to produce.

[533]*533Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion because the plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars and notice to produce were “palpably improper” (see Hillside Equities v UFH Apts., 297 AD2d 704, 705 [2002]; Harrell v County of Nassau, 227 AD2d 590, 591 [1996]; Coleman v Richards, 138 AD2d 556 [1988]; Ginsberg v Ginsberg, 104 AD2d 482 [1984]). The Supreme Court was not required to prune the plaintiffs’ improper demands (see Haszinger v Praver, 12 AD3d 485, 486 [2004]; Posh Pillows v Hawes, 138 AD2d 472 [1988]; Simpson Elec. Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 130 AD2d 738 [1987]; Benzenberg v Telecom Plus of Upstate N.Y., 119 AD2d 717 [1986]; Jonassen v A.M.F., Inc., 104 AD2d 484, 486 [1984]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 532, 799 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-erbesh-nne-inc-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack