From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turbowitz v. Mapeth, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1988
140 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 9, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By order dated October 15, 1986, the plaintiff, whose failure to serve a bill of particulars then spanned a 2 1/2-year period, was warned that her continued failure to serve a bill within 15 days of service of the order would result in preclusion. In December 1986, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the bill had never been served and that it was impossible for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case against them in light of the prior conditional order of preclusion (see, CPLR 3042 [e]). It was only in response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff finally served her bill of particulars. She did not, however, move to vacate her default in timely serving a bill and failed to establish the merits of her cause of action (see, Trinchera v Yonkers Gen. Hosp., 131 A.D.2d 841; Centenni v St. Peter of Alcantara, 99 A.D.2d 525, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 605). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the defendants' motion. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Turbowitz v. Mapeth, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1988
140 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Turbowitz v. Mapeth, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LISA TURBOWITZ, Appellant, v. MAPETH, INC., Doing Business as NEPTUNE PUB…

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

Date published: May 9, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Lee v. Enoch Star Restoration Fund Dev. Co.

Accordingly, those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were to vacate their defaults were properly…