Case Name: 1009 Second Avenue Associates, Respondent, v. Benenson Capital Company et al., Appellants. (And Other Actions.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-12-22
Citations: 256 A.D.2d 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: 1009 Second Avenue Associates, Respondent, v Benenson Capital Company et al., Appellants. (And Other Actions.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 223–223

Head Matter:
1009 Second Avenue Associates, Respondent, v Benenson Capital Company et al., Appellants. (And Other Actions.)
[682 NYS2d 348]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered July 13, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motions for preclusion and protective orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs' additional bill of particulars is adequately responsive to a demand that improperly sought much in the way of evidentiary material (see, Rabat v GNAC Corp., 155 AD2d 245). The lack of knowledge of the deposition witnesses produced by defendant partnership warrants the deposition of the individual on whom plaintiff served a subpoena (see, Tower v Chemical Bank, 140 AD2d 514). Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.