Sager v. Rochester General Hospital

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court erred in ordering plaintiffs to serve corrected responses to items Nos. 22, 34-37, and 55 of defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars. There is no basis for the court’s ruling directing plaintiffs to rewrite paragraph 22 to delete the tagline referring to "other” unspecified acts of negligence on defendant’s part. Paragraph 22, which the court otherwise found to be adequate, contains specific allegations of negligence. The boilerplate reference to "other”…