Shanahan v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shanahan v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home, Inc.

65 A.D.2d 744, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13549

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 744 (Shanahan v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home, Inc.) 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

Shanahan v. Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home, Inc., 65 A.D.2d 744, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 8, 1978, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent appealed from, and plaintiff-appellant’s motion to strike items from defendants-respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars granted in so far as to strike Demands Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, without costs and without disbursements. Objection to Demand No. 11 has been withdrawn. More than enough detail concerning the complained of acts of malpractice has been furnished in the complaint itself to obviate the necessity for repetition in a bill. (See CPLR 3043, subd [a], par [3].) Further, the demands, though separately numbered, are repetitious to a great extent. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Evans, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 8, 1978, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent appealed from, and plaintiff-appellant’s motion to strike items from defendants-respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars granted in so far as to strike Demands Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, without costs and without disbursements. Objection to Demand No. 11 has been withdrawn. More than enough detail concerning the complained of acts of malpractice has been furnished in the complaint itself to obviate the necessity for repetition in a bill. (See CPLR 3043, subd [a], par [3].) Further, the demands, though separately numbered, are repetitious to a great extent. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Evans, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 744, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shanahan-v-mary-manning-walsh-nursing-home-inc-nyappdiv-1978.