Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Construction Co.

110 A.D. 865, 97 N.Y.S. 116

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D. 865 (Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Construction 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

Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. O'Rourke Engineering Construction Co., 110 A.D. 865, 97 N.Y.S. 116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The defendant appeals from an. order granting plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars of certain matters alleged as a defense to the cause of action. We are of the opinion that a bill of particulars was properly ordered as to certain facts alleged and which are designated in the order “ 1 ” and “ 4.” Plaintiff was not entitled to a bill of particulars as to the items designated ,2” and “3,” nor was it entitled to all of that designated “6.” As to “6,” plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars as’to whether the agreement referred to in that item is in writing, and if not in writing, then a statement to that effect, and this is all it is entitled to under that item. The order appealed from, therefore, should be modified as here indicated, and as thus modified affirmed,'without costs to either party. Present Ingraham, McLaughlin, - Clarke and Houghton, JJ. Order modified as indicated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam :

The defendant appeals from an. order granting plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars of certain matters alleged as a defense to the cause of action. We are of the opinion that a bill of particulars was properly ordered as to certain facts alleged and which are designated in the order “ 1 ” and “ 4.” Plaintiff was not entitled to a bill of particulars as to the items designated ,2” and “3,” nor was it entitled to all of that designated “6.” As to “6,” plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars as’to whether the agreement referred to in that item is in writing, and if not in writing, then a statement to that effect, and this is all it is entitled to under that item. The order appealed from, therefore, should be modified as here indicated, and as thus modified affirmed,'without costs to either party. Present Ingraham, McLaughlin, - Clarke and Houghton, JJ. Order modified as indicated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D. 865, 97 N.Y.S. 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knickerbocker-trust-co-v-orourke-engineering-construction-co-nyappdiv-1905.