From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coloccia v. Coloccia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 29, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by adding to the provision thereof denying the motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence at trial the words "on condition that the plaintiff's attorney pay to the defendant the sum of $750 costs"; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a bill of particulars, and the verified bill demonstrates the merits of the action. Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the defendant's motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence at trial ( see, Elliot v New York City Hous. Auth., 187 A.D.2d 410; Darrell v Yurchuk, 174 A.D.2d 557). However, under the circumstances, the denial of the defendant's motion should have been conditioned upon an appropriate payment by the plaintiff's attorney to the defendant to help offset the expenses incurred by the defendant in moving to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence at trial. Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coloccia v. Coloccia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 29, 1995
222 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Coloccia v. Coloccia

Case Details

Full title:LETIZIA COLOCCIA, Also Known as LINDA COLOCCIA, Respondent, v. FRANK…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
636 N.Y.S.2d 109

Citing Cases

Insl-X Products Corp. v. F K Supply, Inc.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the Supreme Court erred in not granting its motion to preclude the…