Becher v. Peress

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becher v. Peress

108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43048

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 711 (Becher v. Peress) 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

Becher v. Peress, 108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of certain agreements, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.) dated March 6, 1984, which denied his motion to vacate or modify defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted to the extent of vacating all items requested without prejudice to the service of a proper demand for a bill of particulars.

We find defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars to be so unreasonable, unnecessarily repetitious and burdensome as to constitute an abuse of the right to a bill of particulars. Accordingly, we vacate the demand in its entirety, without prejudice to the service of a proper demand (see, Universal Metal Prods. Co. v De-Mornay Budd, 275 App Div 575; American Mint Corp. v Ex-Lax, Inc., 260 App Div 576). Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of certain agreements, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.) dated March 6, 1984, which denied his motion to vacate or modify defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted to the extent of vacating all items requested without prejudice to the service of a proper demand for a bill of particulars.

We find defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars to be so unreasonable, unnecessarily repetitious and burdensome as to constitute an abuse of the right to a bill of particulars. Accordingly, we vacate the demand in its entirety, without prejudice to the service of a proper demand (see, Universal Metal Prods. Co. v De-Mornay Budd, 275 App Div 575; American Mint Corp. v Ex-Lax, Inc., 260 App Div 576). Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 872, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becher-v-peress-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack