Legal Opinion

Corlett v. Kiefer

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNathaniel T. Herman, J.

Motions numbered 92 and 109 are consolidated herewith. Both motions are intertwined and affect the disposition of each other. Plaintiff moves to modify one of the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars. The said defendant moves to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination because it is premature and said defendant is entitled to priority of examination pursuant to the rules of this court.

The motion to modify the demand for a bill of particulars is granted with respect to item lb by setting forth only the particular portion of the will pertaining to the devise of the stock to plaintiff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lustig v. Longchamps, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  2. Carney v. Liebmann Breweries, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Weber v. Columbia Amusement Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re the Probate of the Will of ReynoldsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API