In re the Estate of Golding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Golding

12 A.D.2d 458, 208 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7132

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 458 (In re the Estate of Golding) 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

In re the Estate of Golding, 12 A.D.2d 458, 208 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on or about June 3, 1960, as grants respondent’s motion for a reargument of his motion to vacate in its entirety petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars dated February 16, 1960, and upon such reargument adhering to its original decision denying respondent’s motion to vacate certain items contained in petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to vacate petitioner-respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars in its entirety is granted, with $10 costs. The examination before trial of respondent-appellant, directing examination on “All the relevant and material allegations of fact put in issue by the pleadings herein ”, permits an appropriate and exhaustive inquiry into the entire subject matter [459]*459of the numerous items contained in the demand for a bill of particulars. Furthermore, the answer does not assert affirmative defenses and petitioner, in its lengthy demand, seeks evidentiary amplification of the allegations of his own petition. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on or about June 3, 1960, as grants respondent’s motion for a reargument of his motion to vacate in its entirety petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars dated February 16, 1960, and upon such reargument adhering to its original decision denying respondent’s motion to vacate certain items contained in petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to vacate petitioner-respondent’s demand for a bill of particulars in its entirety is granted, with $10 costs. The examination before trial of respondent-appellant, directing examination on “All the relevant and material allegations of fact put in issue by the pleadings herein ”, permits an appropriate and exhaustive inquiry into the entire subject matter [459]*459of the numerous items contained in the demand for a bill of particulars. Furthermore, the answer does not assert affirmative defenses and petitioner, in its lengthy demand, seeks evidentiary amplification of the allegations of his own petition. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 458, 208 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-golding-nyappdiv-1960.