Mendelson v. Auto-Magic Door Opener Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendelson v. Auto-Magic Door Opener Corp.

48 A.D.2d 883, 369 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10137

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

DecidedJune 16, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 883 (Mendelson v. Auto-Magic Door Opener Corp.) 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

Mendelson v. Auto-Magic Door Opener Corp., 48 A.D.2d 883, 369 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty and negligence, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 30, 1975, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate paragraph 6 of appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In this personal injury action, one cause of action is based upon the alleged negligence of appellant. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to know, by way of a bill of particulars: "The acts and/or omissions alleged to constitute the negligence of [appellant.]” (Schnell v New York Tel. Co., 12 AD2d 523). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty and negligence, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 30, 1975, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate paragraph 6 of appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars. Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In this personal injury action, one cause of action is based upon the alleged negligence of appellant. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to know, by way of a bill of particulars: "The acts and/or omissions alleged to constitute the negligence of [appellant.]” (Schnell v New York Tel. Co., 12 AD2d 523). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Cohalan and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 883, 369 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelson-v-auto-magic-door-opener-corp-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack