Tuffo v. Red Coach Realty, Inc.

129 A.D.2d 966, 514 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45619
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 1987·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly granted summary judgment to defendants and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate an order of preclusion entered upon plaintiffs’ failure to respond timely to defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Plaintiff Peter Tuffo’s medical excuse for failure to comply was not verified and, in any event, was legally insufficient (see, Le Frois Foods Corp. v Aetna Ins. Co., 47 AD2d 994). Since the information requested in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars related to every aspect of plaintiffs’ claims, the preclusion order effectively prevented plaintiffs from establishing a prima facie case. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper (see, Centenni v St. Peter of Alcantara, 99 AD2d 525, lv denied 63 NY2d 605; Gerr v Weissberg, 62 AD2d 931, affd 47 NY2d 730; DeJohn v Winkelman Co., 53 AD2d 1049). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—summary judg-

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

Tuffo v. Red Coach Realty, Inc., 129 A.D.2d 966, 514 N.Y.S.2d 283, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

129 A.D.2d 966 (Tuffo v. Red Coach Realty, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D'Agostino v. Chersevani
216 A.D.2d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Pawarski v. Southeast Community Work Center, Inc.
143 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Vecchiano v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
135 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)