The first order appealed from by the State conditionally relieved claimant from its failure to furnish a bill of particulars within the time specified by a prior conditional order of preclusion. The second order the State is appealing denied its motion to resettle the first order and effectively found that claimant had fulfilled its terms. The Court of Claims noted that claimant's attorneys had not been derelict in their efforts to comply with the original preclusion order...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
