Pimentel v. 2275 Holding, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pimentel v. 2275 Holding, Ltd.

236 A.D.2d 250, 654 N.Y.S.2d 289

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 250 (Pimentel v. 2275 Holding, Ltd.) 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

Pimentel v. 2275 Holding, Ltd., 236 A.D.2d 250, 654 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 1, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs an extension of time to serve a bill of particulars on each of the defendants-appellants, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 17, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to serve bills of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting plaintiffs final opportunities to provide the required bills of particulars (see, e.g., Kolner, Inc. v Dziadul, 55 AD2d 716). We have considered defendants-appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 1, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs an extension of time to serve a bill of particulars on each of the defendants-appellants, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 17, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs a further extension of time to serve bills of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting plaintiffs final opportunities to provide the required bills of particulars (see, e.g., Kolner, Inc. v Dziadul, 55 AD2d 716). We have considered defendants-appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 250, 654 N.Y.S.2d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pimentel-v-2275-holding-ltd-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack