| Blumenfeld v Smith |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 00308 [245 AD3d 587] |
| January 27, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Alan Blumenfeld et al., Respondents, v Jeffrey D. Smith et al., Appellants. |
Herrick Feinstein LLP, New York (Eliad S. Shapiro of counsel), for appellants.
Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever, LLP, White Plains (Jeffrey S. Peters of counsel), for respondents.
Pleading
- Bill of Particulars
- Request for Evidentiary Materials
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about March 20, 2025, which denied defendants and nominal defendants' motion to vacate so much of the status conference order, same court and Justice, dated January 16, 2025, as held that plaintiffs were not required to respond to their demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to require plaintiffs to respond to the demand for a bill of particulars. "The object of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial, not to gain disclosure of evidentiary material" (Arroyo v Fourteen Estusia Corp., 194 AD2d 309, 309 [1st Dept 1993] [citation omitted]). The subject demand improperly requests material evidentiary in nature that is more appropriately sought through discovery. Concur—Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.