Bellavia v. Allied Elec. Motor Service
| Decision Date | 25 November 1974 |
| Citation | 46 A.D.2d 807,361 N.Y.S.2d 193 |
| Parties | Michael BELLAVIA, etc., et al., Appellants, v. ALLIED ELECTRIC MOTOR SERVICE et al., Defendants, and Bock Laundry Machine Company, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Spatt, Bauman & Wilkins, P.C., New York City (Arthur D. Spatt, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City (James J. Sentner, Jr., and John K. Weir, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries predicated upon alleged (1) negligent design and manufacture of a centrifugal water extractor and (2) breach of warranty of fitness for use, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 5, 1973, as conditionally granted the branch of a motion by defendant Bock Laundry Machine Company which sought to preclude plaintiffs from offering, at the trial, evidence of any defect in any component of the extractor, the condition being one to permit plaintiffs to serve a supplemental bill of particulars stating with specificity the exact nature of the claimed defects.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and said branch of said motion denied, upon condition that plaintiffs' attorneys personally pay $150 costs to defendant Bock Laundry Machine Company within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon.
Two previous orders were made as to particulars to be furnished by plaintiffs to defendant Bock. In July, 1971 Bock demanded a bill of particulars which, Inter alia, asked plaintiffs to state with specificity the exact nature of the claimed defect in the extractor. Plaintiffs served a bill of particulars in January, 1972. Bock deemed the bill insufficient and moved for a conditional order of preclusion. This resulted in a March, 1972 order directing plaintiffs to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. Plaintiffs did so, but Bock also deemed that insufficient and moved for another conditional order of preclusion. That motion was granted on default, by an order made in September, 1972.
As indicated above, the appeal is from the third, above-described, order. In its decision, Special Term stated that while the supplemental bill of particulars served pursuant to the order of March, 1972 might have been sufficient, plaintiffs, by permitting a default to be taken, had established, as the law of the case, defendant's right to additional particulars with respect to the nature of the defects in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipley v. City of N.Y.
...( see Brownrigg v. New York City Housing Authority, 29 AD3d 721, 722, 815 N.Y.S.2d 681 [2d dept.2006]; Bellavia v. Allied Elec. Motor Serv., 46 A.D.2d 807, 361 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2d Dept.1974]; Gay v. Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 772 N.Y.S.2d 871 [2d Dept.2004].) The doctrine may be “ignored” in “extrao......
-
Shipley v. City of New York
...(see Brownrigg v. New York City Housing Authority, 29 AD3d 721, 722, 815 N.Y.S.2d 681 [2d dept. 2006]; Bellavia v. Allied Elec. Motor Serv., 46 AD2d 807, 361 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2d Dept. 1974]; Gay v. Farella, 5 AD3d 540, 772 N.Y.S.2d 871 [2d Dept. 2004].) The doctrine may be "ignored" in "extrao......
-
Sabo v. Candero, 2007 NY Slip Op 30351(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/21/2007)
...relitigation of issues of law that have already been determined at an earlier stage of the proceeding (see Bellavia v Allied Elec. Motor Serv., 46 A.D.2d 807, 361 N.Y.S.2d 193). The doctrine applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decisio......
-
Batista v. St. Luke's Hospital, Woman's Hospital Division
... ... 13, 1972, defendant granted a 10-day extension for service of the bill. However, the record indicates that it was not ... ...