Opinion
September 21, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Seneca County, De Pasquale, J.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and O'Donnell, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant's motion granted, with leave to plaintiffs, if so advised, to renew their demand for a bill of particulars. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendant's motion to vacate plaintiffs' demand for a bill of particulars. The demand is overbroad and improperly seeks evidentiary material (see Bonafede v Stevens Buick-Cadillac, 90 A.D.2d 690); names of possible witnesses (see Frequency Electronics v We're Assoc. Co., 90 A.D.2d 822); and matters on which plaintiffs have the burden of proof (see New England Seafoods v Travelers Cos., 84 A.D.2d 676). Because of the large number of improper demands and the fact that they are commingled in the same paragraphs with proper ones, we vacate the entire demand. (See Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 A.D.2d 529.)