Johnson v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Wagner

124 A.D.2d 1054, 508 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62413

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1054 (Johnson v. Wagner) 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

Johnson v. Wagner, 124 A.D.2d 1054, 508 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[1055]*1055The particulars requested in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the demand are not relevant to plaintiffs claim in this action for moneys received by defendant as plaintiff’s agent. The particulars requested in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, however, are pertinent to the claim and should be furnished. Defendant’s motion, therefore, is granted to the extent that plaintiff is precluded from offering evidence at the trial concerning the matters requested in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the demand unless he complies with those requests within 30 days after the service of the order entered hereon. Should plaintiff for good cause be unable to furnish the particulars within 30 days after service of the order, he may move at Special Term for an extension of time. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Dugan, J. — preclusion.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

[1055]*1055The particulars requested in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the demand are not relevant to plaintiffs claim in this action for moneys received by defendant as plaintiff’s agent. The particulars requested in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, however, are pertinent to the claim and should be furnished. Defendant’s motion, therefore, is granted to the extent that plaintiff is precluded from offering evidence at the trial concerning the matters requested in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the demand unless he complies with those requests within 30 days after the service of the order entered hereon. Should plaintiff for good cause be unable to furnish the particulars within 30 days after service of the order, he may move at Special Term for an extension of time. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Dugan, J. — preclusion.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1054, 508 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-wagner-nyappdiv-1986.