De Leo v. Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Leo v. Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insurance

16 A.D.2d 736, 226 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523

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

DecidedApril 5, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 736 (De Leo v. Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insurance) 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

De Leo v. Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insurance, 16 A.D.2d 736, 226 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The final clause of the second ordering paragraph reading as follows: “and, with respect to each such material matter, in what respects it will be claimed that plaintiff swore falsely,” should be stricken out. The plaintiff will have an adequate bill of particulars upon defendants’ compliance with the order as modified. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion to preclude the defendants from giving testimony upon certain conditions.) Present—• Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The final clause of the second ordering paragraph reading as follows: “and, with respect to each such material matter, in what respects it will be claimed that plaintiff swore falsely,” should be stricken out. The plaintiff will have an adequate bill of particulars upon defendants’ compliance with the order as modified. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion to preclude the defendants from giving testimony upon certain conditions.) Present—• Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 736, 226 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-leo-v-eureka-security-fire-marine-insurance-nyappdiv-1962.