Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti

50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 803 (Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti) 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

Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti, 50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In two condemnation proceedings,- the claimants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 25, 1974, which denied their motions (a separate one in each proceeding) to vacate the condemnor’s demands for bills of particulars. Order reversed, without costs, and motions granted. The bills of particulars demanded in these proceedings seek to compel production of items which are evidentiary merely and are the means by which the pleaders will prove their claims, rather than the specification of what they will claim. This is improper (cf White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v Einhorn, 38 AD2d 979; 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Practice, § 36:13). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— In two condemnation proceedings,- the claimants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 25, 1974, which denied their motions (a separate one in each proceeding) to vacate the condemnor’s demands for bills of particulars. Order reversed, without costs, and motions granted. The bills of particulars demanded in these proceedings seek to compel production of items which are evidentiary merely and are the means by which the pleaders will prove their claims, rather than the specification of what they will claim. This is improper (cf White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v Einhorn, 38 AD2d 979; 6 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Practice, § 36:13). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newburgh-urban-renewal-agency-v-saffioti-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack