Roth v. Brooklyn Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. Brooklyn Hospital

120 A.D.2d 725, 502 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56847

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

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 725 (Roth v. Brooklyn Hospital) 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

Roth v. Brooklyn Hospital, 120 A.D.2d 725, 502 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated January 3, 1985, as denied her motion to strike certain specified items from the demand for a bill of particulars of the defendants Anthony N. Manoli and Anthony N. Manoli, M.D., P.C.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and items Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 27 of the demand for a bill of particulars of the respondents are stricken.

The items stricken seek evidentiary matter which should be sought in discovery proceedings rather than in a bill of particulars. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated January 3, 1985, as denied her motion to strike certain specified items from the demand for a bill of particulars of the defendants Anthony N. Manoli and Anthony N. Manoli, M.D., P.C.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and items Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 27 of the demand for a bill of particulars of the respondents are stricken.

The items stricken seek evidentiary matter which should be sought in discovery proceedings rather than in a bill of particulars. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 725, 502 N.Y.S.2d 660, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-brooklyn-hospital-nyappdiv-1986.