Lustig v. Longchamps, Inc.
279 A.D. 928, 111 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5341
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1952·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
[929] In our opinion, examination with respect to the items allowed is material and necessary for plaintiff’s preparation of this action for trial. Upon the termination of the examination he should then be able to furnish an accurate and comprehensive bill of particulars. The service of such a bill will be more conducive to orderly and expeditious procedure. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Wenzel, Mac Crate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lustig v. Longchamps, Inc., 279 A.D. 928, 111 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).
279 A.D. 928 (Lustig v. Longchamps, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cornell v. Mor-Nell Development Corp.
43 Misc. 2d 1086 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
King v. McCormick
19 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Corlett v. Kiefer
34 Misc. 2d 325 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of Felter
32 Misc. 2d 985 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of Barasch
32 Misc. 2d 548 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In re the Accounting of Walzer
8 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Propp v. Rothenberg
16 Misc. 2d 584 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Carney v. Liebmann Breweries, Inc.
8 Misc. 2d 1064 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Eisenstaedt v. Schweitzer
3 A.D.2d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)