Haines v. Cook Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haines v. Cook Electric Co.

20 A.D.2d 517, 244 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 517 (Haines v. Cook Electric 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

Haines v. Cook Electric Co., 20 A.D.2d 517, 244 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 25, 1963, granting in part plaintiff’s motion to strike certain items of the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. One of the items passed upon merits some discussion. It is paragraph XIY of the demand for a bill of particulars. That item refers to foreign law. In this suit for professional services by the plaintiff—an Argentine lawyer—demand is made for $16,000,000. The complaint alleges specifically, that the sum sought is fixed by Argentine law. The plaintiff seeks recovery of that amount solely by virtue [518]*518of that law. The defendant, by its answer, puts that allegation in issue. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff to offer proof of the Argentine law relied upon in support of his position. By presenting that issue through his complaint the plaintiff in effect requests the court to pass upon questions of Argentine law. Therefore, he should be required to furnish, through his bill of particulars, details with respect to the foreign law relied upon (see CPLR, § 4511, subd. [b]; 5 Weinstein, Korn, Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 4511.05). Accordingly, Special Term properly refused to strike paragraph XIV of the demand, for a bill of particulars. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 25, 1963, granting in part plaintiff’s motion to strike certain items of the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. One of the items passed upon merits some discussion. It is paragraph XIY of the demand for a bill of particulars. That item refers to foreign law. In this suit for professional services by the plaintiff—an Argentine lawyer—demand is made for $16,000,000. The complaint alleges specifically, that the sum sought is fixed by Argentine law. The plaintiff seeks recovery of that amount solely by virtue [518]*518of that law. The defendant, by its answer, puts that allegation in issue. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff to offer proof of the Argentine law relied upon in support of his position. By presenting that issue through his complaint the plaintiff in effect requests the court to pass upon questions of Argentine law. Therefore, he should be required to furnish, through his bill of particulars, details with respect to the foreign law relied upon (see CPLR, § 4511, subd. [b]; 5 Weinstein, Korn, Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 4511.05). Accordingly, Special Term properly refused to strike paragraph XIV of the demand, for a bill of particulars. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 517, 244 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haines-v-cook-electric-co-nyappdiv-1963.