Pongini v. City of New York

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered September 12, 1973, denying defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or in the alternative, to require plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted to the extent of directing plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars as to items numbered 3 and 6 of the demand within 10 days after completion of the defendant-appellant’s examination before trial and, as so modified, the order is affirmed,' without costs and without disbursements. The responses to items numbered 3 and 6 of the demand are little more than a series of conclusory statements serving merely to repeat, the general allegations of the complaint and as such, are insufficient (see Barger v. Kaye, 16 A D 2d 751; Miller v. Rabinowitz, 5 A D 2d 822). How*520ever, since much of the information sought is not within the possession of the plaintiff and can be obtained through an examination before trial of the defendant-appellant, a final order of preclusion should not be granted until the examination is completed. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Tilzer and Moore, JJ.