State v. Severino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Severino

118 A.D.2d 848, 500 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54702

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 848 (State v. Severino) 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

State v. Severino, 118 A.D.2d 848, 500 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants Manlio Severino, Lawrence Severino, Annette Severino, Kent Nursing Home and Kentur Development Company, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Gurahian, J.), dated December 4, 1984, which denied their motion to compel compliance with their demand for a bill of particulars.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not err in denying the appellants’ motion to compel compliance with their demand for a bill of particulars, nor did it abuse its discretion in directing that renewal of the demand await the completion of the examinations before trial. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action seeking, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants Manlio Severino, Lawrence Severino, Annette Severino, Kent Nursing Home and Kentur Development Company, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Gurahian, J.), dated December 4, 1984, which denied their motion to compel compliance with their demand for a bill of particulars.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not err in denying the appellants’ motion to compel compliance with their demand for a bill of particulars, nor did it abuse its discretion in directing that renewal of the demand await the completion of the examinations before trial. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 848, 500 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-severino-nyappdiv-1986.