Barger v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barger v. Kaye

16 A.D.2d 751, 227 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 751 (Barger v. Kaye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barger v. Kaye, 16 A.D.2d 751, 227 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on February 19, 1962, denying motion to preclude, unanimously modified on the law to grant motion unless a proper bill be served within 20 days after entry of order herein, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. The demand is for particulars as to which defendant accused plaintiff of certain acts, the date of the accusation and, if by innuendo, the nature thereof. The alleged particulars are a series of characterizations of defendant’s conduct without specifying the details requested. While there is some attempt at compliance with the first request, the balance, if stripped of eonclusory adjectives, says nothing at all. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order entered on February 19, 1962, denying motion to preclude, unanimously modified on the law to grant motion unless a proper bill be served within 20 days after entry of order herein, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants. The demand is for particulars as to which defendant accused plaintiff of certain acts, the date of the accusation and, if by innuendo, the nature thereof. The alleged particulars are a series of characterizations of defendant’s conduct without specifying the details requested. While there is some attempt at compliance with the first request, the balance, if stripped of eonclusory adjectives, says nothing at all. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 751, 227 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barger-v-kaye-nyappdiv-1962.