Netter v. Freidus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Netter v. Freidus

24 A.D.2d 434, 260 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866

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

DecidedJune 22, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 434 (Netter v. Freidus) 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

Netter v. Freidus, 24 A.D.2d 434, 260 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on April 14, 1965 granting defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars of the affirmative defenses in defendants’ answer, unanimously reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, on the law and on the facts, and the motion denied. This is a stockholder’s derivative action alleging corporate waste and mismanagement on the part of the individual defendants. The allegations set forth in the affirmative defenses are so broad and general and relate to undefined events and transactions alleged to have taken place at unspecified times over a period of 30 years that it is necessary to provide plaintiffs with a bill of particulars to narrow the issues and limit the proof. Although two or three of the items demanded could be held to be too broad in their scope, the demand, as a whole, is reasonable and clearly and specifically stated and should, therefore, stand. Concur — Botcin, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Staley, JJ.

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

Order entered on April 14, 1965 granting defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a bill of particulars of the affirmative defenses in defendants’ answer, unanimously reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, on the law and on the facts, and the motion denied. This is a stockholder’s derivative action alleging corporate waste and mismanagement on the part of the individual defendants. The allegations set forth in the affirmative defenses are so broad and general and relate to undefined events and transactions alleged to have taken place at unspecified times over a period of 30 years that it is necessary to provide plaintiffs with a bill of particulars to narrow the issues and limit the proof. Although two or three of the items demanded could be held to be too broad in their scope, the demand, as a whole, is reasonable and clearly and specifically stated and should, therefore, stand. Concur — Botcin, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 434, 260 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/netter-v-freidus-nyappdiv-1965.