Foster v. Curtis

121 A.D. 689, 106 N.Y.S. 388, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1877
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1907·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Ingraham, J.:

Upon the papers presented I think the plaintiff was entitled to the particulars required to be furnished.

The'order should be modified, however, by striking out the provision imposing a penalty for a failure to file the bill of particulars required by the order. " If a bill of particulars, as required should not be furnished, the plaintiff may then apply to the court for an order preventing the defendants from giving any evidence as to the items about which the bill of particulars vas ordered; but until there has been a default this provision is improper.

It follows that the order appealed from must be modified by [690]*690striking ont the last clause of the order, 'and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Patterson, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ.,, concurred.

Qr.der modified as directed in. opinión, and . as modified affirmed, without costs.- Settle order on notice.

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

Foster v. Curtis, 121 A.D. 689, 106 N.Y.S. 388, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

121 A.D. 689 (Foster v. Curtis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Locker v. American Tobacco Co.
200 F. 973 (S.D. New York, 1912)
Prym v. Peck & Mack Co.
136 A.D. 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Szorc v. Zdanowski
114 N.Y.S. 754 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)