White v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

34 A.D.2d 756, 311 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943

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

DecidedMay 7, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 756 (White v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance) 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

White v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, 34 A.D.2d 756, 311 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 9, 1969, denying defendant’s motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars, and to strike his complaint for failure to serve proper answers to written interrogatories, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-respondent. As this court stated in Baumgarten v. Lear (26 A D 2d 932) : “ Litigators would be well-advised not to spend their time or the court’s on appeals that will not affect any substantial interest”. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I vote to modify the order entered June 9, 1970 to the extent of striking from plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars the following items: 6(a), 6(b), 7(d), 8(d), 11(a), (b) and (e). These items call for the disclosure of evidentiary detail which is not the office of. a bill of particulars. (U.M.&M. Fin. Corp. v. Hirsch, 16 A D 2d 770; McCullen, Bills of Particulars, §§ 47-48, and cases cited.)

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

Order, entered on June 9, 1969, denying defendant’s motion to vacate or modify plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars, and to strike his complaint for failure to serve proper answers to written interrogatories, affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-respondent. As this court stated in Baumgarten v. Lear (26 A D 2d 932) : “ Litigators would be well-advised not to spend their time or the court’s on appeals that will not affect any substantial interest”. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I vote to modify the order entered June 9, 1970 to the extent of striking from plaintiff’s demand for a bill of particulars the following items: 6(a), 6(b), 7(d), 8(d), 11(a), (b) and (e). These items call for the disclosure of evidentiary detail which is not the office of. a bill of particulars. (U.M.&M. Fin. Corp. v. Hirsch, 16 A D 2d 770; McCullen, Bills of Particulars, §§ 47-48, and cases cited.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 756, 311 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-st-paul-fire-marine-insurance-nyappdiv-1970.