Romeas v. Boettger

120 N.Y.S. 754
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 21, 1910·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a reargument is not appealable to this court. Peterson v. Felt, 61 App. Div. 176, 70 N. Y. Supp. 440; Tucker v. Dudley, 104 App. Div. 191, 93 N. Y. Supp. 355.

The order granting the bill of particulars should be modified, by striking therefrom the word “exact,” and that portion of the order which gives costs to the defendant, and there should be inserted! in said order a provision that it should not be construed to prevent the plaintiff from proving his cause of action, if it should appear that others than those specified in the bill of particulars were present at the time the words complained of were spoken (Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460, 78 N. Y. Supp. 327), and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, but with disbursements to appellant.

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

Romeas v. Boettger, 120 N.Y.S. 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

120 N.Y.S. 754 (Romeas v. Boettger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stoutenburgh v. Svecenski
133 N.Y.S. 922 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)