Tsacoyannis v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsacoyannis v. James

181 A.D.2d 882, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 882 (Tsacoyannis v. James) 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

Tsacoyannis v. James, 181 A.D.2d 882, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), dated April 3, 1990, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely bill of particulars.

[883]*883Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the record before us, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting a conditional preclusion order in lieu of dismissing the complaint for failure to timely serve a timely bill of particulars. Harwood, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), dated April 3, 1990, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely bill of particulars.

[883]*883Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the record before us, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting a conditional preclusion order in lieu of dismissing the complaint for failure to timely serve a timely bill of particulars. Harwood, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 882, 581 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsacoyannis-v-james-nyappdiv-1992.