Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike certain portions of the plaintiff's response to the appellant's demand for a bill of particulars. Our review of the record discloses that the plaintiff's answer to item No. 3 sets forth a "general statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence" claimed and, is therefore, a proper response (see, Abrams v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 84 A.D.2d 554, 555; CPLR 3043 [a] [3]; Cirelli v. Victory Mem. Hosp., 45 A.D.2d 856).
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.