Opinion
April 1, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.).
Appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which sought an order directing plaintiffs to serve a more definite complaint dismissed. That portion of the order is not appealable as a matter of right ( see, CPLR 5701 [b] [2]).
Order otherwise affirmed.
Plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs' amended verified complaint is broadly drafted and fails to specify the nature of the allegedly improper treatment, it cannot be deemed insufficient as a matter of law ( Torres v. Southside Hosp., 84 A.D.2d 836). There is no basis in law to hold a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, who most often is less likely than the defendant to have knowledge of proper surgical procedures and medical treatment, to a greater burden than plaintiffs in other types of personal injury actions ( Cirelli v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 A.D.2d 856). Inasmuch as the complaint sets forth sufficient data for appellants to ascertain what it is that plaintiffs are complaining about ( Weber v. Wise, 86 A.D.2d 891), the subject pleading satisfies the basic pleading requirement of CPLR 3013 ( see, Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 208). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.