Coin v. Lebenkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coin v. Lebenkoff

10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10102

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

DecidedMay 10, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 916 (Coin v. Lebenkoff) 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

Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion of defendant-appellant to preclude unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, unless plaintiff-respondent supplies a sufficient bill of particulars in compliance with the demand within 20 days of the entry of the order herein and service thereof. In the absence of a timely motion to vacate or modify a demand for a bill of particulars, the items will not be scrutinized and an order of preclusion will be granted unless the demand is palpably improper (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 115 ; Tomasino v. Prudential Westchester Gorp., 1 A D 2d 781; cf. Universal Metal Prods. Go. v. Be-Mo'rnay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575, in which it was observed that the court might exercise its discretion to deny the motion to preclude, and did so on finding the demand “elaborate and oppressive”. Tripp, A Guide to Motion Practice [rev. ed.], § 48). Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order denying motion of defendant-appellant to preclude unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, unless plaintiff-respondent supplies a sufficient bill of particulars in compliance with the demand within 20 days of the entry of the order herein and service thereof. In the absence of a timely motion to vacate or modify a demand for a bill of particulars, the items will not be scrutinized and an order of preclusion will be granted unless the demand is palpably improper (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 115 ; Tomasino v. Prudential Westchester Gorp., 1 A D 2d 781; cf. Universal Metal Prods. Go. v. Be-Mo'rnay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575, in which it was observed that the court might exercise its discretion to deny the motion to preclude, and did so on finding the demand “elaborate and oppressive”. Tripp, A Guide to Motion Practice [rev. ed.], § 48). Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 916, 200 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coin-v-lebenkoff-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack