Pfiel v. Seven-Up Bottling Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfiel v. Seven-Up Bottling Co.

258 A.D. 1031, 16 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 1031 (Pfiel v. Seven-Up Bottling Co.) 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

Pfiel v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 258 A.D. 1031, 16 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified, as matter of discretion, by adding to the first ordering paragraph, after the word “ granted,” the words:. “ unless plaintiff shall serve the required bill of particulars within ten days from the date of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof and shall pay to the defendant-respondent the motion costs and the costs awarded to the defendant-respondent on this appeal,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars [1032]*1032costs and disbursements to the defendant-respondent. All concur. (The order grants a motion of the defendant, F. E. Reed Glass Company, sued as L. E. Reed Glass Company, to preclude plaintiff from giving evidence on the trial in regard to matters as to which he failed to give particulars as ordered by the court, in a negligence action.) Present—'Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order modified, as matter of discretion, by adding to the first ordering paragraph, after the word “ granted,” the words:. “ unless plaintiff shall serve the required bill of particulars within ten days from the date of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof and shall pay to the defendant-respondent the motion costs and the costs awarded to the defendant-respondent on this appeal,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars [1032]*1032costs and disbursements to the defendant-respondent. All concur. (The order grants a motion of the defendant, F. E. Reed Glass Company, sued as L. E. Reed Glass Company, to preclude plaintiff from giving evidence on the trial in regard to matters as to which he failed to give particulars as ordered by the court, in a negligence action.) Present—'Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 1031, 16 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfiel-v-seven-up-bottling-co-nyappdiv-1940.