Hirsch v. Harrison Factors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirsch v. Harrison Factors Corp.

15 A.D.2d 549, 222 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 549 (Hirsch v. Harrison Factors Corp.) 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

Hirsch v. Harrison Factors Corp., 15 A.D.2d 549, 222 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

[550]*550Said subdivision (a) of item 14 requires plaintiff to set forth the names and addresses of her employees, but only as to those who, it is alleged, were induced to send orders directly to defendant instead of to plaintiff. Since the special damages sought by plaintiff are alleged to have been caused by defendant’s conduct in inducing plaintiff’s employees to send orders directly to defendant, the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars giving the names and addresses of those persons who were so induced (Santoro v. Star & Crescent Milling Co., 244 App. Div. 750; Hainbach v. York Feather & Down Corp., 273 App. Div. 814; Kosiorek v. Hodgkinson, 278 App. Div. 852). Plaintiff’s time to serve the bill of particulars pursuant to defendant’s demand as thus modified, is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

[550]*550Said subdivision (a) of item 14 requires plaintiff to set forth the names and addresses of her employees, but only as to those who, it is alleged, were induced to send orders directly to defendant instead of to plaintiff. Since the special damages sought by plaintiff are alleged to have been caused by defendant’s conduct in inducing plaintiff’s employees to send orders directly to defendant, the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars giving the names and addresses of those persons who were so induced (Santoro v. Star & Crescent Milling Co., 244 App. Div. 750; Hainbach v. York Feather & Down Corp., 273 App. Div. 814; Kosiorek v. Hodgkinson, 278 App. Div. 852). Plaintiff’s time to serve the bill of particulars pursuant to defendant’s demand as thus modified, is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 549, 222 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-harrison-factors-corp-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack