Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their motion for a final order of preclusion. Although a prior order of the same court, dated April 26, 1995, directed the plaintiff to serve additional responses within 60 days in the event that her bill of particulars was deemed to be lacking in specificity, the prior order did not provide that she would...
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.