Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. We're Associates Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. We're Associates Co.

90 A.D.2d 822, 456 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19063

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 A.D.2d 822 (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. We're Associates Co.) 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

Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. We're Associates Co., 90 A.D.2d 822, 456 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin defendants from terminating plaintiff’s leasehold interest in property owned by defendant We’re Associates Company, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated April 22,1982, which denied their motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3042 vacating plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, with' $50 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the demand is granted, with leave to plaintiff, if it be so advised, to serve a proper amended demand. With respect to information within defendants’ personal knowledge, service of a demand for a bill of particulars need not be deferred until after the completion of depositions (cf. Singer Warehouse & Trucking Corp. v Duskin, 87 AD2d 770; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.07). However, much of the information demanded by plaintiff is evidentiary in nature, and includes, inter alia, the names of potential witnesses. It is not the function of a bill of particulars to provide evidentiary material (see Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529). Therefore, the demand must be vacated, with leave to plaintiff, if it be so advised, to serve a proper amended demand. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin defendants from terminating plaintiff’s leasehold interest in property owned by defendant We’re Associates Company, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated April 22,1982, which denied their motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3042 vacating plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, with' $50 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the demand is granted, with leave to plaintiff, if it be so advised, to serve a proper amended demand. With respect to information within defendants’ personal knowledge, service of a demand for a bill of particulars need not be deferred until after the completion of depositions (cf. Singer Warehouse & Trucking Corp. v Duskin, 87 AD2d 770; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3041.07). However, much of the information demanded by plaintiff is evidentiary in nature, and includes, inter alia, the names of potential witnesses. It is not the function of a bill of particulars to provide evidentiary material (see Philipp Bros. Export Corp. v Acero Peruano S.A., 88 AD2d 529). Therefore, the demand must be vacated, with leave to plaintiff, if it be so advised, to serve a proper amended demand. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 822, 456 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frequency-electronics-inc-v-were-associates-co-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack