Bing v Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C.

[*1] Bing v Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C. 2005 NY Slip Op 52125(U) [10 Misc 3d 136(A)] Decided on December 15, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 15, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ.
2005-373 K C

Lance Bing, Respondent,

against

Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, P.C., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ann E. O'Shea, J.), dated January 11, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, as limited by defendant's brief, upon deeming defendant's motion for reargument to be a motion to vacate the denial of defendant's prior motion to dismiss and granting such vacatur, denied the motion to dismiss.

Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Contrary to defendant's contentions, the court below did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The endorsed complaint in the instant action apprised defendant of the date and nature of the claim in sufficient detail to enable it to serve an answer, in which it denied liability and asserted
several affirmative defenses and a counterclaim, and to serve a demand for a bill of particulars. More detailed facts regarding plaintiff's claim may be obtained by defendant through the process of discovery (see Holloway v New York City Tr. Auth., 182 Misc 2d 749 [1999]).
Decision Date: December 15, 2005