L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Diener & Dorskind, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Diener & Dorskind, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 516, 294 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2958

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 516 (L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Diener & Dorskind, Inc.) 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

L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Diener & Dorskind, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 516, 294 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered July 1, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to deny plaintiff’s motion to preclude and to grant defendant’s cross motion insofar as it sought vacatur of plaintiff’s demand for bill of particulars, and said order otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. A defendant should not ordinarily be required to furnish a bill of particulars where his answer consists solely of denials and admissions. (See Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp., 263 App. Div. 1017; United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp. v. City of Syracuse, 83 N. Y. S. 2d 895, 897.) Here, the demand for a bill of particulars sought detailed evidentiary material more properly obtainable on an examination before trial. The demand was decidedly improper as it was obviously an attempt to shift the burden of proof and placed an improper burden on the defendant. We conclude that under the circumstances here, the defendant was not guilty of laches precluding its right to have the demand vacated. (See Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A D 2d 916; Helfant v. Rappoport, 14 A D 2d 764; see, also, Baumgarten v. Lear, 26 A D 2d 932.) Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order, entered July 1, 1968, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to deny plaintiff’s motion to preclude and to grant defendant’s cross motion insofar as it sought vacatur of plaintiff’s demand for bill of particulars, and said order otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. A defendant should not ordinarily be required to furnish a bill of particulars where his answer consists solely of denials and admissions. (See Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp., 263 App. Div. 1017; United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp. v. City of Syracuse, 83 N. Y. S. 2d 895, 897.) Here, the demand for a bill of particulars sought detailed evidentiary material more properly obtainable on an examination before trial. The demand was decidedly improper as it was obviously an attempt to shift the burden of proof and placed an improper burden on the defendant. We conclude that under the circumstances here, the defendant was not guilty of laches precluding its right to have the demand vacated. (See Coin v. Lebenkoff, 10 A D 2d 916; Helfant v. Rappoport, 14 A D 2d 764; see, also, Baumgarten v. Lear, 26 A D 2d 932.) Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 516, 294 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-f-dommerich-co-v-diener-dorskind-inc-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack