Sell v. Supermaid Cook-Ware Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sell v. Supermaid Cook-Ware Corp.

229 A.D. 791

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

DecidedMay 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D. 791 (Sell v. Supermaid Cook-Ware Corp.) 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

Sell v. Supermaid Cook-Ware Corp., 229 A.D. 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars modified by striking therefrom items 29, 31, 34 and 35, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff. In so far as the defendant’s motion was denied the denial was proper as the particulars to which defendant is entitled are adequately covered by the items allowed by the Special Term which have been left undisturbed. In reference to items 29 and 31, those items were improperly allowed, as the complaint gives adequate detail with respect to the subject-matter of them. In so far as items 34 and 35 are concerned, they are not properly incorporated in a bill of particulars [792]*792of the complaint herein as it contains no allegations to which they may be referred. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars modified by striking therefrom items 29, 31, 34 and 35, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff. In so far as the defendant’s motion was denied the denial was proper as the particulars to which defendant is entitled are adequately covered by the items allowed by the Special Term which have been left undisturbed. In reference to items 29 and 31, those items were improperly allowed, as the complaint gives adequate detail with respect to the subject-matter of them. In so far as items 34 and 35 are concerned, they are not properly incorporated in a bill of particulars [792]*792of the complaint herein as it contains no allegations to which they may be referred. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D. 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sell-v-supermaid-cook-ware-corp-nyappdiv-1930.