Opinion
October 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We reject the defendant's contention that specified paragraphs of the plaintiff's bill of particulars failed to adequately apprise it of the plaintiff's theories of negligence and his injuries. Accordingly, the court correctly denied the defendant's motion with respect to these paragraphs (see, Sager v. Rochester Gen. Hosp., 170 A.D.2d 949; cf., Padro v. Boulevard Hosp., 92 A.D.2d 888). Thompson, J.P., Miller, O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.