Opinion
September 24, 1976
Appeal from the Wayne Supreme Court.
Present — Marsh, P.J., Moule, Simons, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Defendant moved for an order of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and plaintiff cross-moved for an order directing defendant to accept her tendered bill of particulars and to vacate an order of preclusion. Special Term denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's motion, holding that the admitted "law office failure" or "law office inadvertence" of plaintiff's attorney is insufficient reason to excuse the inordinate delay in furnishing the bill of particulars, after service upon the attorney of the order of preclusion. As we stated in Williams v Mallinckrodt Chem. Works ( 42 A.D.2d 1044, 1045) "we have repeatedly held that law office failures do not excuse defaults such as occurred here (see Abbinanti v. Baisch, 41 A.D.2d 693) ". (See, also, Rabetoy v Atkinson, 49 A.D.2d 691, app dsmd 37 N.Y.2d 803; McIntire Assoc. v Glens Falls Ins. Co., 41 A.D.2d 692; Dent v Baxter, 37 A.D.2d 908; Clements v Peters, 33 A.D.2d 1096; Sortino v Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25, 29.) No extraordinary or exceptional circumstances are alleged and Special Term's discretion was properly exercised (Schultz v Kobus, 15 A.D.2d 382).