¶1— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiff’s responses to designated items in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars were sufficient. The court’s order denying defendants’ motion for reargument is not appealable (see, Fahey v County of Nassau, 111 AD2d 214). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Baisley, J. — Preclusion Order.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
175 A.D.2d 680
Mardiros v. Ghaly
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 12, 1991
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1991-07-12
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2002
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1991-07-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →