Opinion
13005 Index No. 652365/14 Case No. 2020-02733
02-02-2021
Jeffrey WEINSTEIN individually and derivatively on behalf of W.W.W. Associates, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. W.W.W. ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Barbara Weinstein et al., Defendants.
Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville (Michael B. Schulman of counsel), for appellants. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel PC, New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for respondent.
Michael B. Schulman & Associates, P.C., Melville (Michael B. Schulman of counsel), for appellants.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel PC, New York (Paul N. Gruber of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Webber, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered May 12, 2020, which sustained plaintiff's objections to the unanswered demands in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, and denied defendants’ request to compel plaintiff to respond fully to their demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in sustaining plaintiff's objections to defendants’ unanswered bill of particulars demands where the detailed allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint had already pleaded, with requisite specificity (see CPLR 3016 ), the nature and extent of plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty as against the individual defendants, as well as plaintiff's claims for an accounting and the appointment of a receiver. Plaintiff's factual allegations in his amended complaint provide adequate notice of the claims asserted against defendants, and further amplification of such pleadings is unwarranted (see Northway Eng'g, Inc. v. Felix Indus., 77 N.Y.2d 332, 335–336, 567 N.Y.S.2d 634, 569 N.E.2d 437 [1991] ; Arroyo v. Fourteen Estusia Corp., 194 A.D.2d 309, 598 N.Y.S.2d 471 [1st Dept. 1993] ).
We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.