Legal Opinion

Arel, Inc. v. Optics Manufacturing Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHarold Tessler, J.

The plaintiff in two successive motions seeks (1) to vacate, or, in the alternative, modify the defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars, and (2) to require the defendant to serve an amended answer separately stating and numbering the allegations contained in the first and second affirmative defenses, paragraphs fifth and sixth, and the second, third and fourth counterclaims, paragraphs eleventh, thirteenth and seventeenth of the defendant’s answer, to strike from the answer, pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, that part of paragraph sixth which refers to the plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dior v. MiltonNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Heilbronn v. . HerzogNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Drydock Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Queens Machine Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  4. O'Hara v. DerschugAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  5. Blackman-Shapiro Co. v. SalzbergCity of New York Municipal Court · 1957

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Personal Pool of Manhattan, Inc. v. DinannoCivil Court of the City of New York · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API