People ex rel. Ingber v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ingber v. Jackson

5 A.D.2d 1019, 172 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344

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

DecidedApril 9, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 1019 (People ex rel. Ingber v. Jackson) 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

People ex rel. Ingber v. Jackson, 5 A.D.2d 1019, 172 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a policy of burglary insurance, the appeals are (1) from so much of an order dated October 21, 1957 as on respondents’ motion strikes certain items from appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars as to respondents’ claim, and (2) from so much of an order dated November 1, 1957 as denies appellant’s motion to strike items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 from respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars as to appellant’s defenses. Order dated October 21, 1957 modified by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph. Order dated November 1, 1957 modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph everything between the figure “ 2 ” and the words “ and that ” and by substituting therefor “3, so much of item 4 as seeks particulars as to how appellant knew the statements to be false and fraudulent, 6, 9, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 24 in said demand for a bill of particulars, dated September 24, 1957 are hereby vacated”. As so modified, orders insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. The office of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, to limit the proof and to prevent surprise at the trial. The granting of a bill of particulars depends upon what the aggrieved party claims the facts are, and not upon the adversary’s knowledge thereof, nor upon the actual facts. (Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345.) Liberality in granting bills of particulars is the general rule. (Elman v. Ziegfield, 200 App. Div. 494.) Particulars which involve a disclosure of evidence may not be had. (Elman v. Ziegfield, supra.) When matter is pleaded as a separate and distinct defense which could be proved under a general denial, a plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars under rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Kanter v. Cooper, 277 App. Div. 1143; Burns v. Lipson, 204 App. Div. 643.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a policy of burglary insurance, the appeals are (1) from so much of an order dated October 21, 1957 as on respondents’ motion strikes certain items from appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars as to respondents’ claim, and (2) from so much of an order dated November 1, 1957 as denies appellant’s motion to strike items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 from respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars as to appellant’s defenses. Order dated October 21, 1957 modified by striking therefrom the first ordering paragraph. Order dated November 1, 1957 modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph everything between the figure “ 2 ” and the words “ and that ” and by substituting therefor “3, so much of item 4 as seeks particulars as to how appellant knew the statements to be false and fraudulent, 6, 9, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 24 in said demand for a bill of particulars, dated September 24, 1957 are hereby vacated”. As so modified, orders insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. The office of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, to limit the proof and to prevent surprise at the trial. The granting of a bill of particulars depends upon what the aggrieved party claims the facts are, and not upon the adversary’s knowledge thereof, nor upon the actual facts. (Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345.) Liberality in granting bills of particulars is the general rule. (Elman v. Ziegfield, 200 App. Div. 494.) Particulars which involve a disclosure of evidence may not be had. (Elman v. Ziegfield, supra.) When matter is pleaded as a separate and distinct defense which could be proved under a general denial, a plaintiff is entitled to a bill of particulars under rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Kanter v. Cooper, 277 App. Div. 1143; Burns v. Lipson, 204 App. Div. 643.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 1019, 172 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ingber-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack