Sayre v. Federman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sayre v. Federman

181 A.D.2d 819, 583 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 819 (Sayre v. Federman) 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

Sayre v. Federman, 181 A.D.2d 819, 583 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated June 4, 1990, as denied their motion to compel service of a further bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The challenged responses were adequate and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to compel service of a further bill of particulars (see, CPLR 3043 [c]). The phrase "inter alia”, contained in the plaintiff’s response to Demand Number 3 and Demand Number 6 did [820]*820not refer to acts or omissions of the defendants but rather to examples of a particular omission which was specifically alleged in the bill of particulars (cf., Ohnemus v Rosenthal, 126 AD2d 614; Padro v Boulevard Hosp., 92 AD2d 888). The amplification sought with regard to the response given to Demand Number 13 would be more appropriately accomplished at an examination before trial (see, Caudy v Rivkin, 109 AD2d 725). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated June 4, 1990, as denied their motion to compel service of a further bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The challenged responses were adequate and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to compel service of a further bill of particulars (see, CPLR 3043 [c]). The phrase "inter alia”, contained in the plaintiff’s response to Demand Number 3 and Demand Number 6 did [820]*820not refer to acts or omissions of the defendants but rather to examples of a particular omission which was specifically alleged in the bill of particulars (cf., Ohnemus v Rosenthal, 126 AD2d 614; Padro v Boulevard Hosp., 92 AD2d 888). The amplification sought with regard to the response given to Demand Number 13 would be more appropriately accomplished at an examination before trial (see, Caudy v Rivkin, 109 AD2d 725). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 819, 583 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sayre-v-federman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack