Opinion
March 23, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The challenged responses were adequate and the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to compel service of a further bill of particulars (see, CPLR 3043 [c]). The phrase "inter alia", contained in the plaintiff's response to Demand Number 3 and Demand Number 6 did not refer to acts or omissions of the defendants but rather to examples of a particular omission which was specifically alleged in the bill of particulars (cf., Ohnemus v Rosenthal, 126 A.D.2d 614; Padro v Boulevard Hosp., 92 A.D.2d 888). The amplification sought with regard to the response given to Demand Number 13 would be more appropriately accomplished at an examination before trial (see, Caudy v Rivkin, 109 A.D.2d 725). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.