Aker v. Kelly
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLawrence H. Cooke, J.
Defendants Cosgrove move for an order precluding plaintiff from giving evidence at the trial as to matters covered by items “ 3 ”, “ 4 ”, “ 6 ”, “ 7 ”, “ 12 ”, “ 13 ”, “ 14 ”, 15 ” and “ 16 ” of the demand. Apparently after this motion was instituted, plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars.
In furnishing the particulars requested, a bill should follow the designation of the items set forth in the demand and each item of the demand must be answered separately and categorically under its own number and subdivision (Desimone v. Robertson, 19 Misc 2d 80, 82; Matter of Heller, 205…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Desimone v. RobertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Peck v. Bandell, New York County Courts1937
- Fizette v. Riverview Plaza, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1963
- Levine v. RosenmanNew York Supreme Court · 1948
- Caivana v. SpohnNew York Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Goodman v. GoodmanNew York Supreme Court · 1977