Watertown Paper Co. v. West

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watertown Paper Co. v. West

73 N.Y. St. Rep. 846

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

DecidedApril 10, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 846 (Watertown Paper Co. v. West) 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

Watertown Paper Co. v. West, 73 N.Y. St. Rep. 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears by the affidavit upon which this motion was made that this defendant has not answered or demurred or otherwise moved in reference to the complaint since the-same was served upon him. There is no allegation in the moving-papers that a bill of particulars is necessary to enablé the defendant to prepare his answer; and it is quite evident that it is not, as he can deny, either expressly pr upon information and belief, the-allegations contained in the complaint. We think, therefore, that this motion was prematurely made, aud that, at this stage of the-action, the facts necessary to be alleged and proved were not before the court to justify the granting of a bill of particulars.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears by the affidavit upon which this motion was made that this defendant has not answered or demurred or otherwise moved in reference to the complaint since the-same was served upon him. There is no allegation in the moving-papers that a bill of particulars is necessary to enablé the defendant to prepare his answer; and it is quite evident that it is not, as he can deny, either expressly pr upon information and belief, the-allegations contained in the complaint. We think, therefore, that this motion was prematurely made, aud that, at this stage of the-action, the facts necessary to be alleged and proved were not before the court to justify the granting of a bill of particulars.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.Y. St. Rep. 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watertown-paper-co-v-west-nyappdiv-1896.