Woodruff v. Maleklpour

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodruff v. Maleklpour

79 A.D.2d 566, 436 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13885

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 566 (Woodruff v. Maleklpour) 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

Woodruff v. Maleklpour, 79 A.D.2d 566, 436 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 14, 1979, denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer and vacate defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer and vacate the demand for a bill of particulars is granted, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer in proper form, separately stating and numbering his affirmative defenses in plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs and with any counterclaims properly denominated as such, and with further leave to serve a demand for a bill of particulars which seeks amplification of the pleadings, not evidentiary and irrelevant matter nor the discovery and production of documents. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Bims, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 14, 1979, denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer and vacate defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer and vacate the demand for a bill of particulars is granted, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer in proper form, separately stating and numbering his affirmative defenses in plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs and with any counterclaims properly denominated as such, and with further leave to serve a demand for a bill of particulars which seeks amplification of the pleadings, not evidentiary and irrelevant matter nor the discovery and production of documents. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Bims, Lupiano and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 566, 436 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-maleklpour-nyappdiv-1980.