Daly v. Arley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daly v. Arley

20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 776 (Daly v. Arley) 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

Daly v. Arley, 20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 18, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to preclude or strike certain matters from the second supplemental bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted to the extent of precluding plaintiff-respondent from giving any evidence at the trial of this action as to the matters set forth in that part of subdivision (a) of paragraph 5 of the second supplemental bill of particulars beginning with the word “ aggravation ” to the end of said paragraph. Plaintiff-respondent is further precluded from giving any evidence at the trial of special damages that may have flowed from that pre-existing condition or any claimed aggravation thereof. The clear intent of our decision of November 7, 1963 only permitted plaintiff to bring up to date special damages which allegedly flowed from the original injuries claimed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on December 18, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to preclude or strike certain matters from the second supplemental bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted to the extent of precluding plaintiff-respondent from giving any evidence at the trial of this action as to the matters set forth in that part of subdivision (a) of paragraph 5 of the second supplemental bill of particulars beginning with the word “ aggravation ” to the end of said paragraph. Plaintiff-respondent is further precluded from giving any evidence at the trial of special damages that may have flowed from that pre-existing condition or any claimed aggravation thereof. The clear intent of our decision of November 7, 1963 only permitted plaintiff to bring up to date special damages which allegedly flowed from the original injuries claimed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 776, 247 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daly-v-arley-nyappdiv-1964.