Legal Opinion

Harbet v. Finkelstein

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1962Published

1Opinion of the CourtHarold Tessler, J.

In an action to recover moneys allegedly entrusted to the defendants for investment, the latter move to require the plaintiffs to serve a further bill of particulars. *25The plaintiffs, in a cross motion, seek to vacate the notice to examine them before trial.

Subdivision (d) of rule 115 of the Rules of Civil Practice requires that “In the absence of special circumstances ” the motion papers to direct the service of a further bill be served within 10 days after receipt of the bill claimed to be insufficient.

In the case at bar, a verified bill of particulars was served on February 15, 1962, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Curtis v. CurtisNew York Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Faine v. Imported Brands, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Lowsley v. Uretzky, New York County Courts1954

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

Powered by the Exa API