From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vecchiano v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 21, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 3, 1986, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order made upon reargument of a decision; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 15, 1986, is affirmed, and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By prior order dated September 1, 1983, the plaintiff has been precluded from offering proof at trial with respect, inter alia, to "the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed" and the nature of permanent injuries sustained and their consequences, based upon her failure to adequately respond to the defendants' demand for a bill of particulars. Since the information requested in the defendants' bill of particulars relates to virtually every aspect of the plaintiff's claim, the preclusion order effectively prevents the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case (see, Tuffo v Red Coach Realty, 129 A.D.2d 966). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vecchiano v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 21, 1987
135 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Vecchiano v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PATSY VECCHIANO, Appellant, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 21, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Ubozoh v. Mueller

Since plaintiff cannot offer medical evidence of her alleged injuries, she will not be able to meet her…

Shanler v. State

Addressing the merits of the appeal, we conclude that the Court of Claims did not err in its grant of summary…