From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coin v. Lebenkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1960
10 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Opinion

May 10, 1960


Order denying motion of defendant-appellant to preclude unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, unless plaintiff-respondent supplies a sufficient bill of particulars in compliance with the demand within 20 days of the entry of the order herein and service thereof. In the absence of a timely motion to vacate or modify a demand for a bill of particulars, the items will not be scrutinized and an order of preclusion will be granted unless the demand is palpably improper (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 115; Tomasino v. Prudential Westchester Corp., 1 A.D.2d 781; cf. Universal Metal Prods. Co. v. De-Mornay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575, in which it was observed that the court might exercise its discretion to deny the motion to preclude, and did so on finding the demand "elaborate and oppressive". Tripp, A Guide to Motion Practice [rev. ed.], § 48).

Concur — Breitel, J.P., Rabin, M.M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.


Summaries of

Coin v. Lebenkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 10, 1960
10 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)
Case details for

Coin v. Lebenkoff

Case Details

Full title:JEROME J. COIN, Respondent, v. ABRAHAM LEBENKOFF, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 10, 1960

Citations

10 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Wood v. Sardi's Restaurant Corp.

Copy of any statements taken from any person regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the aforesaid…

Schatz v. Bankers Shippers Ins. Co.

We are, however, concerned with the problem presented because the rule was not complied with in this case. In…