Zacharias v. Siegal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zacharias v. Siegal

5 A.D.2d 996, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367

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

DecidedApril 7, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 996 (Zacharias v. Siegal) 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

Zacharias v. Siegal, 5 A.D.2d 996, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for an accounting, an order was entered, on appellant’s motion to vacate respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars, striking out item 5 (d) only, and otherwise denying the motion. The appeal is from so much of the order as denies the motion to strike out items 2, 3, 4 (a), 4 (b), 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (e) and 6. Order modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph “Item 5-D ” and by substituting therefor “items 4(b), 5(b), and 5(d) ”. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Items 4 (b) and 5 (b) are matters upon which respondents will have the duty to account in the first instance in the event appellant becomes entitled to an accounting, and appellant may not be required to particularize in respect thereof (Sirota v. Abko Prods., 277 App. Div. 899).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for an accounting, an order was entered, on appellant’s motion to vacate respondents’ demand for a bill of particulars, striking out item 5 (d) only, and otherwise denying the motion. The appeal is from so much of the order as denies the motion to strike out items 2, 3, 4 (a), 4 (b), 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (e) and 6. Order modified by striking from the first ordering paragraph “Item 5-D ” and by substituting therefor “items 4(b), 5(b), and 5(d) ”. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Items 4 (b) and 5 (b) are matters upon which respondents will have the duty to account in the first instance in the event appellant becomes entitled to an accounting, and appellant may not be required to particularize in respect thereof (Sirota v. Abko Prods., 277 App. Div. 899).

Wenzel, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 996, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zacharias-v-siegal-nyappdiv-1958.