Landers v. Automatic Irrigation Design

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Landers v. Automatic Irrigation Design

44 A.D.2d 836, 355 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041

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

DecidedMay 13, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 836 (Landers v. Automatic Irrigation Design) 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

Landers v. Automatic Irrigation Design, 44 A.D.2d 836, 355 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Senter, Inc., Respondent. In an action to cancel a notice of mechanic’s lien and to recover money damages, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 12, 1973 and entered January 11, 1974, as (1) upon her motion [837]*837to vacate defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, directed her to serve a bill as to Items Nos. 2, 3, 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 9, 11 and 12 of the demand and (2) upon her motion to vacate defendant’s notice to examine her before trial, granted her only the limited relief of fixing the place for such examination at the courthouse of the Supreme Court in Mineóla. Order modified by adding thereto a provision striking the second sentences in Items Nos. 3 and 9 of the demand for particulars. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The second sentence in Item No. 3 asks plaintiff to “attach copies of all estimates and paid bills.” The second sentence in Item No. 9 asks plaintiff to “attach estimates and bills.” For the purposes of the bill of particulars, it is sufficient that plaintiff provide detailed information as to how she computes certain damages (Item No. 3) and that she set forth a list of repairs made to her sprinkler system (Item No. 9). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Senter, Inc., Respondent. In an action to cancel a notice of mechanic’s lien and to recover money damages, plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 12, 1973 and entered January 11, 1974, as (1) upon her motion [837]*837to vacate defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, directed her to serve a bill as to Items Nos. 2, 3, 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 9, 11 and 12 of the demand and (2) upon her motion to vacate defendant’s notice to examine her before trial, granted her only the limited relief of fixing the place for such examination at the courthouse of the Supreme Court in Mineóla. Order modified by adding thereto a provision striking the second sentences in Items Nos. 3 and 9 of the demand for particulars. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. The second sentence in Item No. 3 asks plaintiff to “attach copies of all estimates and paid bills.” The second sentence in Item No. 9 asks plaintiff to “attach estimates and bills.” For the purposes of the bill of particulars, it is sufficient that plaintiff provide detailed information as to how she computes certain damages (Item No. 3) and that she set forth a list of repairs made to her sprinkler system (Item No. 9). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 836, 355 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landers-v-automatic-irrigation-design-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack