Warminski v. Warminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warminski v. Warminski

127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43326

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 831 (Warminski v. Warminski) 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

Warminski v. Warminski, 127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 17, 1985, as denied her motion to vacate a demand for specified items sought in the defendant’s bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiff to respond to certain items contained in the demand for a bill of particulars (see, CPLR 3041; Lasini v Lasini, 111 AD2d 907; Frederick v Frederick, 92 AD2d 1058; Anonymous v Anonymous, 71 AD2d 209; 1 Foster and Freed, Law and the Family § 5:30). If the plaintiff is unable to provide precise dates and locations with respect to the items contained in the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, she shall provide approximations of the information sought to the best of her ability. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 17, 1985, as denied her motion to vacate a demand for specified items sought in the defendant’s bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiff to respond to certain items contained in the demand for a bill of particulars (see, CPLR 3041; Lasini v Lasini, 111 AD2d 907; Frederick v Frederick, 92 AD2d 1058; Anonymous v Anonymous, 71 AD2d 209; 1 Foster and Freed, Law and the Family § 5:30). If the plaintiff is unable to provide precise dates and locations with respect to the items contained in the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, she shall provide approximations of the information sought to the best of her ability. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warminski-v-warminski-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack