Price v. Ryan

88 N.Y.S. 984, 96 A.D. 607
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 984 (Price v. Ryan) 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
Price v. Ryan, 88 N.Y.S. 984, 96 A.D. 607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We think that the order appealed from should be modified by requiring the defendant to serve a bill of particulars to the counterclaim contained in the . amended answer, so as to comply with the plaintiff’s demand in the following respects: (1) In what papers, other than plans and specifications, the plaintiff specified that the defendant’s property was 186 feet east of Broadway. (2) The names of the persons by whom the other surveys, plans, and specifications were made. (3) For what period of time the construction of defendant’s building was delayed. (4) The amount which the defendant lost in rents and income. (5) The names of the persons to whom [985]*985the sum of $10,000 was paid by the defendant, and the nature, extent, and amount of the services rendered or material furnished therefor, and the names of the persons who performed such services or furnished such materials, and during what period of time such services were rendered. (6) The names of the other architects defendant was obliged to procure to make plans and specifications for said building, what work was performed by them, and what the defendant paid them for the same. (7) The names of the persons to whom the sum of three to five thousand dollars was paid by the defendant, and the nature, extent, and the amount of the services rendered or material furnished therefor, and the names of the persons who performed such services or furnished such materials, and during what period of time such services were rendered.

The order appealed from should- be modified accordingly, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Bich v. Bich
2024 NY Slip Op 50234(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
People v. Olsen
23 Misc. 3d 593 (Nassau County District Court, 2009)
Reuters Ltd. v. Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.
231 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Ramirez
129 Misc. 2d 112 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
People v. Price
100 Misc. 2d 372 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Coleman
75 Misc. 2d 1090 (New York County Courts, 1973)
In re Remy Sportswear, Inc.
16 Misc. 2d 407 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1959)
Steinman v. Conlon
79 Misc. 527 (New York Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 N.Y.S. 984, 96 A.D. 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-ryan-nyappdiv-1904.