BLUMENFELD v. 104 LLC (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Alan BLUMENFELD et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Jeffrey D. SMITH et al., Defendants–Appellants, 104 West 29th Street LLC et al., Nominal Defendants–Appellants.

5662

Decided: January 27, 2026

Moulton, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.

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.

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 A.D.2d 309, 309, 598 N.Y.S.2d 471 [1st Dept. 1993] [internal citation omitted]). The subject demand improperly requests material evidentiary in nature that is more appropriately sought through discovery.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network