Hirshowitz v. Bialey
This text of 242 A.D. 780 (Hirshowitz v. Bialey) 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.
Opinion
Order of the County Court of Westchester county denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment modified so as to grant plaintiff leave to renew his motion, if so advised, after having -obtained a 'bill of particulars of the defendant’s separate defense which shall disclose the name of plaintiff’s alleged agent, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the denial of plaintiff’s [781]*781motion on the present record was proper, but, in view of defendant’s failure to disclose the name of the alleged agent, plaintiff should be allowed to renew the motion after obtaining a bill of particulars giving this information. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
242 A.D. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirshowitz-v-bialey-nyappdiv-1934.