From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ritschl v. Village of Highland Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1983
92 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

February 22, 1983


In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for harassment, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.), dated January 11, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate plaintiff's notice requesting a bill of particulars. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendants shall serve plaintiff with the requested bill of particulars within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry. Since the record shows that defendants failed to deny that their motion to vacate plaintiff's notice requesting a bill of particulars was untimely or to offer an excuse for its untimeliness, the court was not required to scrutinize the items sought unless they were palpably improper (see Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A.D.2d 916), which would require a finding that the items were not only inappropriate for a bill of particulars but were also unreasonably burdensome (see Helfant v. Rappoport, 14 A.D.2d 764). We do not find that any of the requested items were palpably improper, and therefore affirm the denial of defendants' motion to vacate plaintiff's notice requesting a bill of particulars. O'Connor, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ritschl v. Village of Highland Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1983
92 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Ritschl v. Village of Highland Falls

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT RITSCHL, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF HIGHLAND FALLS et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 22, 1983

Citations

92 A.D.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Pagones v. Maddox

Contrary to the contention of the defendants Maddox and Sharpton, the plaintiff's earlier motion pursuant to…

Nigro v. Nigro

It is undisputed that defendant did not move to strike plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars within…