Legal Opinion

Sakolish v. Lilga

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1960PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRegis O’Brien, J.

Motion for a further bill of particulars is granted as to the information demanded under items numbered 1 and 2, on consent of the attorney for the plaintiff.

In reference to the demand numbered 3, the motion is also granted.

The information demanded in item 4 referred to the number of visits his physicians made on plaintiff at his residence, and at his office respectively.

In the Fourth Department, the Appellate Division has ruled the defendant is entitled to that specific information.

In the case of Mioducki v. Becht which arose in Erie County in 1951, the Justice presiding at Special Term, May…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Desimone v. RobertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Steinau v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
  3. Mioducki v. BechtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. TinkerNew York Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Spiotto v. Matheos Ice Cream Co.New York Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API