Hirshowitz v. Bialey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirshowitz v. Bialey

242 A.D. 780

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1934·Published

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

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.

Hirshowitz v. Bialey, 242 A.D. 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

242 A.D. 780 (Hirshowitz v. Bialey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.