Chas. P. Young Co. v. Great Western United Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chas. P. Young Co. v. Great Western United Corp.

54 A.D.2d 829, 388 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14576

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 829 (Chas. P. Young Co. v. Great Western United 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

Chas. P. Young Co. v. Great Western United Corp., 54 A.D.2d 829, 388 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 11, 1976, directing appellant to serve a second supplemental bill of particulars or be precluded from offering evidence in support of its second affirmative defense, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing plaintiff to submit to examination before trial without further delay and requiring appellant to serve such further bill of particulars within 30 days after completion thereof, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. [830]*830Since it appears that the present officers and directors of appellant are unfamiliar with the services allegedly rendered by plaintiff, and the information sought is not within their personal knowledge but can be obtained through an examination before trial of plaintiff, the drastic remedy of a final order of preclusion should not be granted until such examination, which was expeditiously noticed, is completed. Concur&emdash;Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 11, 1976, directing appellant to serve a second supplemental bill of particulars or be precluded from offering evidence in support of its second affirmative defense, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of directing plaintiff to submit to examination before trial without further delay and requiring appellant to serve such further bill of particulars within 30 days after completion thereof, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. [830]*830Since it appears that the present officers and directors of appellant are unfamiliar with the services allegedly rendered by plaintiff, and the information sought is not within their personal knowledge but can be obtained through an examination before trial of plaintiff, the drastic remedy of a final order of preclusion should not be granted until such examination, which was expeditiously noticed, is completed. Concur&emdash;Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 829, 388 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chas-p-young-co-v-great-western-united-corp-nyappdiv-1976.