Opinion
November 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.).
Although defendant City was admittedly late in furnishing the bill of particulars in response to plaintiff's demands, there was no court order extant ordering it to furnish the bill. Thus, the drastic sanction of preclusion should not have been invoked by the Supreme Court ( see, Sieden v. Copen, 170 A.D.2d 262). However, plaintiff's attorneys incurred expense and were inconvenienced by the City's delay, and, accordingly, we impose the above condition.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.