Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Brewery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Brewery

255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5885

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 931 (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Brewery) 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

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Brewery, 255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified by providing for a denial of the motion so far as it relates to the defendant Gerhard Lang Brewery and by limiting the bill of particulars as to defendants Sugarman to the matter of improvements, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: In view of the separate defense of adverse possession pleaded by the defendant Gerhard Lang Brewery, we conclude that plaintiff is entitled to the particulars which it has demanded including those which relate to improvements. (Rustin v. Rustin, 228 App. Div. 839; Gubner v. Pillion, 231 id. 857. See, also, Carmody’s N. Y. Practice, vol. 8, pt. 1, p. 181.) All concur. (The order denies in part defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars, in an action in ejectment.) Present -— Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Order modified by providing for a denial of the motion so far as it relates to the defendant Gerhard Lang Brewery and by limiting the bill of particulars as to defendants Sugarman to the matter of improvements, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: In view of the separate defense of adverse possession pleaded by the defendant Gerhard Lang Brewery, we conclude that plaintiff is entitled to the particulars which it has demanded including those which relate to improvements. (Rustin v. Rustin, 228 App. Div. 839; Gubner v. Pillion, 231 id. 857. See, also, Carmody’s N. Y. Practice, vol. 8, pt. 1, p. 181.) All concur. (The order denies in part defendants’ motion to vacate plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars, in an action in ejectment.) Present -— Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 931, 8 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-roebuck-co-v-brewery-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack