Empire Brushes, Inc. v. Gantz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire Brushes, Inc. v. Gantz

32 A.D.2d 646, 301 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022

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

DecidedMay 12, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 646 (Empire Brushes, Inc. v. Gantz) 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

Empire Brushes, Inc. v. Gantz, 32 A.D.2d 646, 301 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 18, 1968, which denied their motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars or, in the alternative, to strike out certain items from the demand. Order modified, on the law and in [647]*647the exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision that the motion is granted to the extent of striking out Items 2(a), 5(b) and 6 of the demand. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the items herewith stricken are not designed to amplify the pleading to which they are directed and improperly seek information as to investigation procedures and evidentiary sources used by defendants. Items challenged for the first time in defendants’ brief and not specified in their notice of motion have not been considered. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 18, 1968, which denied their motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars or, in the alternative, to strike out certain items from the demand. Order modified, on the law and in [647]*647the exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision that the motion is granted to the extent of striking out Items 2(a), 5(b) and 6 of the demand. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the items herewith stricken are not designed to amplify the pleading to which they are directed and improperly seek information as to investigation procedures and evidentiary sources used by defendants. Items challenged for the first time in defendants’ brief and not specified in their notice of motion have not been considered. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 646, 301 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-brushes-inc-v-gantz-nyappdiv-1969.