Posner v. Rosenberg
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Max Rosenberg and another, copartners, etc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 22d day of November, 1911, granting the plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars.
1Opinion of the Court
Burr, J.:
Defendants by their answer set forth various violations of plaintiff’s contract of employment both as a defense and as the basis of a counterclaim. Plaintiff demanded a bill of particulars of defendants’ claim. The word “claim” is sufficiently broad to include both defenses and counterclaims. (Kelsey v. Sargent, 100 N. Y. 602.)
To comply with the order granted by the court at Special Term defendants would be obliged to disclose to plaintiff substantially all of the evidence in their possession necessary to *271support their claim. This is in violation of well-established rules. (Smith v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kelsey v. . SargentNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Smith v. AndersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Smith v. Bradstreet Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fernet v. James Stewart & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1914