Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.

7 A.D.2d 1001, 184 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9712

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 1001 (Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.) 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

Bennett Excavators Corp. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 7 A.D.2d 1001, 184 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for work, labor and services rendered and for materials furnished, and for other relief, the appeals are (1) from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate respondent’s notice to examine appellant before trial and directing appellant to appear for such examination, and (2) from an order denying appellant’s motion to modify respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order denying motion to vacate affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order denying motion to modify modified by striking therefrom everything following the word “is” in the first ordering paragraph and by substituting therefor the words and figure “granted to the extent of striking from said demand item 3 ”’. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the particulars demanded under item “ 3 ” will not serve to narrow the issues or limit the proof but will require the disclosure of the details of evidence. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for work, labor and services rendered and for materials furnished, and for other relief, the appeals are (1) from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate respondent’s notice to examine appellant before trial and directing appellant to appear for such examination, and (2) from an order denying appellant’s motion to modify respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order denying motion to vacate affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Order denying motion to modify modified by striking therefrom everything following the word “is” in the first ordering paragraph and by substituting therefor the words and figure “granted to the extent of striking from said demand item 3 ”’. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the particulars demanded under item “ 3 ” will not serve to narrow the issues or limit the proof but will require the disclosure of the details of evidence. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 1001, 184 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-excavators-corp-v-lasker-goldman-corp-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack