Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp.

263 A.D. 1017, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7903
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 23, 1942·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of a resettled order as strikes out item 16 in her demand for a bill of particulars of the amended answer of the respondent-appellant Swiss Bank Corporation. Cross-appeal by said respondent-appellant from so much of the same order as denies its motion to strike out items 1 to 15, inclusive, contained in the same demand.. Resettled order modified on the law by striking therefrom the first decretal paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof the folio-wing: “ ORDERED that the motion to strike out items 1 to 5, inclusive, and items 16 and 17 of said demand is granted; and the motion to strike out items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is hereby denied; and it is.” As thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant. In our opinion items 1 to 5 should have been struck out under the well-established rule that a defendant will not be required to furnish a bill of particulars as to denials or admissions contained in an answer. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp., 263 A.D. 1017, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

263 A.D. 1017 (Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Northway Eng'g v. FELIX INDUS
77 N.Y.2d 332 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Northway Engineering, Inc. v. Felix Industries, Inc.
569 N.E.2d 437 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Jesmer v. Beyma
66 Misc. 2d 323 (New York Family Court, 1971)
L. F. Dommerich & Co. v. Diener & Dorskind, Inc.
31 A.D.2d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Zone Oil Trucking Corp. v. Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc.
9 Misc. 2d 295 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)