Opinion
December 23, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.).
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In response to a conditional order of preclusion of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berman, J.), dated November 22, 1983, plaintiff timely served further bills of particulars upon the appellants. Nonetheless, the appellants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment, arguing that the further bills of particulars wholly failed to meet the directive contained in Justice Berman's conditional preclusion order that plaintiff serve a further bill of particulars "specifically stating the allegations as they pertain to each defendant, individually".
In opposition to appellants' motions, inter alia, for summary judgment, plaintiff served a second set of further bills of particulars. Special Term (Meade, J.), did not grant summary judgment to the appellants but did grant a conditional order of preclusion. In its decision the court stated, in part: "Although plaintiff has commendably reduced the length of the response, it still contains unacceptable references to the prior bill".
In light of the serious nature of plaintiff's alleged injuries, and her attempts at compliance, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to allow plaintiff another chance to serve a proper bill of particulars (see, Panarelli v State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 54 A.D.2d 961; Hoven v Hoven, 91 A.D.2d 805; cf. Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist. v Costello, 100 A.D.2d 505). Mollen, P.J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.