Hencken v. Edelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hencken v. Edelman

19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 821 (Hencken v. Edelman) 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

Hencken v. Edelman, 19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 16, 1963, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to deny the motion to preclude as to items 4(d) and 4(h), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The particulars set out in plaintiffs’ supplemental and final bill in response to the demand as to these items, though in artistically expressed, are sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and are completely adequate to properly limit the scope of their pleading. They will, of course, be limited in their proofs to evidence of the matters set forth in their bill (see 4 Caranody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 623, § 10) and, under the circumstances, an order of absolute preclusion as to such items was improper. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered on April 16, 1963, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to deny the motion to preclude as to items 4(d) and 4(h), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The particulars set out in plaintiffs’ supplemental and final bill in response to the demand as to these items, though in artistically expressed, are sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and are completely adequate to properly limit the scope of their pleading. They will, of course, be limited in their proofs to evidence of the matters set forth in their bill (see 4 Caranody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 623, § 10) and, under the circumstances, an order of absolute preclusion as to such items was improper. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 821, 243 N.Y.S.2d 548, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hencken-v-edelman-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack