Legal Opinion

Loeb v. Loeb

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

Decided November 15, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order granting defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiff relies upon a general course of conduct in an alienation action. The general rule applicable to such a pleading is that a bill of particulars may not be exacted with respect thereto. (Kirby v. Kirby, 34 App. Div. 25; Ketcham v. Ketcham, 32 id. 26; Earle v. Earle, 79 id. 631; Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Carrie v. Davis, 41 App. Div. 520.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Van Olinda v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Carrié v. DavisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  3. Kirby v. KirbyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Shanik v. ShanikNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Charles v. CharlesNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Dwyer v. ChisesiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API