
    Juan Zavala et al., Respondents, v Chemical Bank, Appellant.
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Pécora, J.), entered on October 30, 1980, affirmed. Respondents shall recover of appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, Birns, Sandler and Fein, JJ.

Murphy, P. J., dissents in a memorandum as follows:

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial. (D & D Recreation v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 54 AD2d 889.) The complaint in this action has not been amplified in any meaningful way because many of the critical items in plaintiffs’ bill are grossly incomplete, unresponsive or evasive. The defendant has the right to narrow the issues before both disclosure and trial. In this proceeding plaintiffs seek damages totaling over $1,000,000 and related relief. This appeal is inextricably intertwined with companion appeal [Exact Value v Chemical Bank, 83 AD2d 821], where approximately $3,000,000 in damages are sought. Before defendant is required to engage in extended disclosure and a protracted trial, the plaintiffs should be obligated to give straightforward and responsive answers with respect to the nature of their claims and their damages. Plaintiffs’ present bill of particulars is almost totally worthless to the defendant. The defendant’s motion should have been granted to the extent of directing plaintiffs to serve a further bill of particulars with regard to those items challenged by the defendant.  