From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roth v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 5, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501[a][1]).

We find no improvident exercise of discretion in the dismissal of the complaint as against the respondents. Over the course of approximately three years and despite several court orders outlining deficiencies in their bills of particulars, the plaintiffs failed to serve a properly detailed bill of particulars on each respondent. The willfulness of the plaintiffs' conduct can be inferred from the record ( see, CPLR 3126; Argenio v. Cushman Wakefield, 227 A.D.2d 578; Porreco v. Selway, 225 A.D.2d 752).

Bracken, J.P., Joy, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Roth v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 1997
239 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Roth v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Case Details

Full title:BERNICE ROTH et al., Appellants, v. SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL et…

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

Date published: May 5, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 332 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 1010

Citing Cases

Roth v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Ordered that the appeal of South Nassau Communities Hospital is dismissed, without costs or disbursements,…

Jones v. Green

The bill of particulars, however, is generalized as to both defendants and fails to particularize the claims…