Estersohn v. Hardy Metal Specialties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estersohn v. Hardy Metal Specialties, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 927

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

DecidedJune 23, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 927 (Estersohn v. Hardy Metal Specialties, Inc.) 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

Estersohn v. Hardy Metal Specialties, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on contract, and in quantum meruit, for professional services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to defendants. Plaintiff appeals from an order insofar as it denied his motion to strike out five items in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Defendants cross-appeal from so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out two items in the demand. Order modified by striking therefrom the provisions which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out items 3(c) and 3(d) and inserting in place thereof a provision denying plaintiff’s motion in that respect. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendants. The items should not have been, struck out under the authority of Gormly V. Smith (165 App. Div. 169). Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Holán and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

Action on contract, and in quantum meruit, for professional services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to defendants. Plaintiff appeals from an order insofar as it denied his motion to strike out five items in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Defendants cross-appeal from so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out two items in the demand. Order modified by striking therefrom the provisions which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike out items 3(c) and 3(d) and inserting in place thereof a provision denying plaintiff’s motion in that respect. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendants. The items should not have been, struck out under the authority of Gormly V. Smith (165 App. Div. 169). Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Holán and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estersohn-v-hardy-metal-specialties-inc-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack