Tart v. Jedvabniks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tart v. Jedvabniks

5 A.D.2d 822, 170 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 822 (Tart v. Jedvabniks) 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

Tart v. Jedvabniks, 5 A.D.2d 822, 170 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

The bill of particulars furnished by plaintiff is essentially nothing more than a reiteration of the general and somewhat eonelusory allegations of the complaint. It is devoid of facts, evidently within the knowledge of plaintiff, that would advise defendants of plaintiff’s claims with sufficient particularity to comply with the provisions of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The order appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the cross motion requiring defendants to accept the bill of particulars is denied, and the motion to preclude is granted, unless plaintiff serves a proper bill of particulars within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry thereof. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Frank and Bastow, JJ.

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

The bill of particulars furnished by plaintiff is essentially nothing more than a reiteration of the general and somewhat eonelusory allegations of the complaint. It is devoid of facts, evidently within the knowledge of plaintiff, that would advise defendants of plaintiff’s claims with sufficient particularity to comply with the provisions of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The order appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the cross motion requiring defendants to accept the bill of particulars is denied, and the motion to preclude is granted, unless plaintiff serves a proper bill of particulars within 20 days after service of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry thereof. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Frank and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 822, 170 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tart-v-jedvabniks-nyappdiv-1958.