Opinion
March 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The response with respect to item two of the appellant's demand for a bill of particulars, which sought particularization of his alleged acts of negligence, though unnecessarily verbose, does apprise the appellant of an adequate number of claimed negligent acts of commission or omission (see, Caudy v. Rivkin, 109 A.D.2d 725).
The various other demands which are the subject of this appeal either sought evidentiary or irrelevant material or material which is otherwise not properly sought in a bill of particulars (see, Korneffel v. Eiseman, 126 A.D.2d 518). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.