Abraitis v. Crandall

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Abraitis v. Crandall

129 N.Y.S. 398

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 18, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 129 N.Y.S. 398 (Abraitis v. Crandall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraitis v. Crandall, 129 N.Y.S. 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from part of an order which denies in part defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars. The action is 'for slander. The part of the order appealed from denies defendant’s motion that plaintiff be required to specify “the names and number of persons in whose presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken of plaintiff.” To prevent surprise at the trial, defendant should have notice of the time'and place and the persons in whose presence the slanderous words were spoken. See Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460, 78 N. Y. Supp. 327. The denial of defendant’s motion in this respect was error.

The order is therefore modified, so as to provide that plaintiff shall, in her bill of particulars, specify the names of witnesses in whose [399]*399presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from part of an order which denies in part defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars. The action is 'for slander. The part of the order appealed from denies defendant’s motion that plaintiff be required to specify “the names and number of persons in whose presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken of plaintiff.” To prevent surprise at the trial, defendant should have notice of the time'and place and the persons in whose presence the slanderous words were spoken. See Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460, 78 N. Y. Supp. 327. The denial of defendant’s motion in this respect was error.

The order is therefore modified, so as to provide that plaintiff shall, in her bill of particulars, specify the names of witnesses in whose [399]*399presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.Y.S. 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraitis-v-crandall-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack