Silverstein v. B. F. Keith Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverstein v. B. F. Keith Corp.

136 Misc. 650, 240 N.Y.S. 360, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 13, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 136 Misc. 650 (Silverstein v. B. F. Keith Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Silverstein v. B. F. Keith Corp., 136 Misc. 650, 240 N.Y.S. 360, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Order unanimously reversed, upon the law, without costs, and motion remitted to the court below for the exercise of its discretion. The provisions of subdivision 7 of section 78 of the New York City Municipal Court Code provide a method for obtaining a bill of particulars which is not contained in the Civil Practice Act covering Supreme Court actions. By the provisions of the New York City Municipal Court Code a demand for a bill of particulars in a proper case may be filed, and within three days thereafter a bill of particulars must be filed. The Municipal Court is granted power to preclude in the event that a bill is not filed after demand. The section does not require, in addition to the demand, a motion for a bill before the court is empowered to grant an order of preclusion. Before a party can be precluded, however, [651]*651an order to that effect should be made prior to the trial. (Teitelbaum v. Empire Bottling Works, 100 Misc. 103; Friedman v. Savino, 170 N. Y. Supp. 1041.) Upon the return of the motion to preclude, the court can determine whether any of the items demanded were proper items, and, in the exercise of discretion, may give the party against whom the demand is made a reasonable time to comply with the demand.

All concur; present, Cropsey, McCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Order unanimously reversed, upon the law, without costs, and motion remitted to the court below for the exercise of its discretion. The provisions of subdivision 7 of section 78 of the New York City Municipal Court Code provide a method for obtaining a bill of particulars which is not contained in the Civil Practice Act covering Supreme Court actions. By the provisions of the New York City Municipal Court Code a demand for a bill of particulars in a proper case may be filed, and within three days thereafter a bill of particulars must be filed. The Municipal Court is granted power to preclude in the event that a bill is not filed after demand. The section does not require, in addition to the demand, a motion for a bill before the court is empowered to grant an order of preclusion. Before a party can be precluded, however, [651]*651an order to that effect should be made prior to the trial. (Teitelbaum v. Empire Bottling Works, 100 Misc. 103; Friedman v. Savino, 170 N. Y. Supp. 1041.) Upon the return of the motion to preclude, the court can determine whether any of the items demanded were proper items, and, in the exercise of discretion, may give the party against whom the demand is made a reasonable time to comply with the demand.

All concur; present, Cropsey, McCrate and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 Misc. 650, 240 N.Y.S. 360, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-b-f-keith-corp-nyappterm-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack