Ratner & Son, Inc. v. American Home Assurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ratner & Son, Inc. v. American Home Assurance

12 A.D.2d 965, 214 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12781

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 965 (Ratner & Son, Inc. v. American Home Assurance) 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

Ratner & Son, Inc. v. American Home Assurance, 12 A.D.2d 965, 214 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for a fire loss under policies of fire insurance issued by defendants, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 1960, as granted plaintiff’s motion to direct defendants to serve a bill of particulars with respect to items 1 and 2 and with respect to items 4, 5, 6 and 7, relating to the first defense pleaded in their answer. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to serve the bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon or until such date as may be mutually fixed by the parties. With respect to the particulars required by items 1 and 2 of the order, if defendants are at present without knowledge as to any of such particulars, they may so state; and, if so advised, they may also state that upon the trial they intend to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the allegations concerning which such particulars have been required (cf. Cherhit v. General Lbr. Corp., 12 A D 2d 637). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover for a fire loss under policies of fire insurance issued by defendants, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 1960, as granted plaintiff’s motion to direct defendants to serve a bill of particulars with respect to items 1 and 2 and with respect to items 4, 5, 6 and 7, relating to the first defense pleaded in their answer. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to serve the bill of particulars is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon or until such date as may be mutually fixed by the parties. With respect to the particulars required by items 1 and 2 of the order, if defendants are at present without knowledge as to any of such particulars, they may so state; and, if so advised, they may also state that upon the trial they intend to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the allegations concerning which such particulars have been required (cf. Cherhit v. General Lbr. Corp., 12 A D 2d 637). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 965, 214 N.Y.S.2d 700, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratner-son-inc-v-american-home-assurance-nyappdiv-1961.