Joffe v. Harbor Tank Storage Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joffe v. Harbor Tank Storage Co.

17 A.D.2d 848, 233 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 848 (Joffe v. Harbor Tank Storage Co.) 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

Joffe v. Harbor Tank Storage Co., 17 A.D.2d 848, 233 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a certified public accountant to recover the reasonable value of professional services rendered by him in a Federal income tax matter during the course of a 10-year period, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 9, 1962, which granted the motion of the five corporate defendants to vacate the plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars with respect to their defense of payment. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied; the bill of particulars to be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the record disclosed special circumstances which justify a departure from the general rule not to direct a bill of particulars of the defense of payment (4 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 647, § 31; Dowling v. Kelly, 263 App. Div. 837; Coolidge v. Stoddard, 120 App. Div. 641; Sittig v. Cohen, 130 App. Div 689; Seely v. Breakwater Co., 144 N. Y. S. 771; Mills v. Porter Co., 203 App. Div. 84; Klock v. Brennan, 13 N. Y. S. 171). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a certified public accountant to recover the reasonable value of professional services rendered by him in a Federal income tax matter during the course of a 10-year period, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 9, 1962, which granted the motion of the five corporate defendants to vacate the plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars with respect to their defense of payment. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied; the bill of particulars to be served within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the record disclosed special circumstances which justify a departure from the general rule not to direct a bill of particulars of the defense of payment (4 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 647, § 31; Dowling v. Kelly, 263 App. Div. 837; Coolidge v. Stoddard, 120 App. Div. 641; Sittig v. Cohen, 130 App. Div 689; Seely v. Breakwater Co., 144 N. Y. S. 771; Mills v. Porter Co., 203 App. Div. 84; Klock v. Brennan, 13 N. Y. S. 171). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 848, 233 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joffe-v-harbor-tank-storage-co-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack