Sevouny v. Henry Hellman Co.

133 Misc. 714, 233 N.Y.S. 332, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 697
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 13, 1929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff having defaulted in the service of a bill of particulars directed to be served by order of the court below, and a subsequent order having been made by that court precluding plaintiff because of his default from offering proof of his alleged cause of action, it was error to make the order appealed from, [715] which although containing no reference to the precluding order in effect reverses that order.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice to an application to vacate preclusion order and open default in serving bill of particulars.

Ltd on and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Peters, J. I concur with that portion of the decision of this court reversing the order below, but dissent as to the remaining portion.

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

Sevouny v. Henry Hellman Co., 133 Misc. 714, 233 N.Y.S. 332, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

133 Misc. 714 (Sevouny v. Henry Hellman Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co.
208 Misc. 89 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)