
    In the Matter of Rose M., Petitioner, v. Kenneth A., Respondent.
    Family Court, Erie County,
    April 19, 1973.
    
      
      Patrick T. Hurley for petitioner. Paul STiatkin for respondent.
   Jambs B. Kane, J.

On February 1, 1973, this court granted a 20-day preclusion order in this matter.

On April 18, 1973, the attorney for the petitioner advised the court that he was not served with a notice of motion prior to the granting of said order.

Section 165 of the Family Court Act states: 1 ‘ Where the method of procedure in any proceeding in which the family court has jurisdiction is not prescribed * * * the provisions of the civil practice law and rules shall apply to the extent that they are appropriate to the proceedings involved.”

Subdivision (c) of CPLB. 3042 specified: In the event that a party fails to furnish a bill of particulars * * * the court, upon notice, may preclude him from giving evidence at the trial of the items of which particulars have not been delivered. ’ ’ (Emphasis supplied).

The court, after reviewing this proceeding to date, and after due deliberation, being of the opinion that the above-cited section of the CPLB is appropriate to this proceeding, and that strict compliance therewith is a prerequisite to • obtaining an order of preclusion.

Now, and upon its own motion, vacates its prior order of preclusion, supra. (Cf. Golowaty v. Machnick Constr. Co., 26 A D 2d 718 [1966].)  