Mayer v. Mayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayer v. Mayer

51 N.Y.S. 1079

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

DecidedMay 20, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 N.Y.S. 1079 (Mayer v. Mayer) 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

Mayer v. Mayer, 51 N.Y.S. 1079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The affidavit upon which the motion for a bill of particulars is based was made by the attorney only. No reason is given why it was not made by the plaintiff. It has often been held that such an affidavit is entirely insufficient to warrant the granting of a bill of particulars. Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357, 31 N. Y. Supp. 495; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Proc. R. 215.

For that reason, the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The affidavit upon which the motion for a bill of particulars is based was made by the attorney only. No reason is given why it was not made by the plaintiff. It has often been held that such an affidavit is entirely insufficient to warrant the granting of a bill of particulars. Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357, 31 N. Y. Supp. 495; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Proc. R. 215.

For that reason, the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.Y.S. 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-mayer-nyappdiv-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack