Opinion
December 15, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The court did not abuse its discretion in denying that branch of Chrysler's cross motion which was to direct the plaintiffs to serve a further bill of particulars. Our review of the record discloses that the plaintiffs' second supplemental bill of particulars is sufficiently responsive so as to serve the objectives of amplifying the pleadings, limiting the proof, and assisting in the preparation for and avoiding surprise at the trial (see, Abrams v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 84 A.D.2d 554, 555; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 3041.03). Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying, after an in camera review, that branch of Chrysler's cross motion which was to compel disclosure of a document entitled "exhibit F". Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.