Stein v. Northshore Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. Northshore Hospital

31 A.D.2d 617, 295 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 617 (Stein v. Northshore 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

Stein v. Northshore Hospital, 31 A.D.2d 617, 295 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered May 27, 1968, granting plaintiffs’ motion to serve a further bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion denied. Plaintiffs were guilty of inexcusable and prejudicial laches in moving on the eve of trial, some seven years after the alleged malpractice, four years after the service of the original bill, and subsequent to the deposition and demise of the physician defendant, to enlarge their bill to embrace claims not stated in the original bill. In the circumstances the granting of the relief was an improvident exercise of discretion. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered May 27, 1968, granting plaintiffs’ motion to serve a further bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion denied. Plaintiffs were guilty of inexcusable and prejudicial laches in moving on the eve of trial, some seven years after the alleged malpractice, four years after the service of the original bill, and subsequent to the deposition and demise of the physician defendant, to enlarge their bill to embrace claims not stated in the original bill. In the circumstances the granting of the relief was an improvident exercise of discretion. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 617, 295 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-northshore-hospital-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack