Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion. Plaintiff's CPLR 3101 (d) notice provides enough detail regarding the substance of her economists' expected testimony (see CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]).
Defendants' claim that the bill of particulars did not indicate that plaintiff's loss was continuing lacks merit, because the bill of particulars states that plaintiff's "disability is of a continuing permanent and partial nature and...
Let's get started

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.