Waterman v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waterman v. Kaufman

5 A.D.2d 981, 173 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6282

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

DecidedApril 15, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 981 (Waterman v. Kaufman) 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

Waterman v. Kaufman, 5 A.D.2d 981, 173 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to preclude granted, unless plaintiff serves a further bill of particulars within 90 days after service of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry thereof, setting forth in responsive fashion as to each transaction the particulars demanded. To be apprised of the details of plaintiff’s claim, defendant is entitled to something more than generalized lists of names and account numbers from which the information demanded can be gleaned only by cross-checking the items appearing therein with its -own records. If the particulars demanded can be ascertained only by reference to the defendant bank’s books and records, plaintiff may apply for an examination thereof pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. If after such examination plaintiff is still without knowledge of the particulars demanded, he should so state under oath. 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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to preclude granted, unless plaintiff serves a further bill of particulars within 90 days after service of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry thereof, setting forth in responsive fashion as to each transaction the particulars demanded. To be apprised of the details of plaintiff’s claim, defendant is entitled to something more than generalized lists of names and account numbers from which the information demanded can be gleaned only by cross-checking the items appearing therein with its -own records. If the particulars demanded can be ascertained only by reference to the defendant bank’s books and records, plaintiff may apply for an examination thereof pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. If after such examination plaintiff is still without knowledge of the particulars demanded, he should so state under oath. 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 981, 173 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1958.