Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gevinson v. Kirkeby-Natus Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 14, 1966Published

1Dissent

Eager, J. (dissenting in part).

Although I am in general agreement with the reasoning of the majority opinion, I conclude that in this case the discretion of Special Term was properly exercised to require the plaintiffs to furnish the particulars as demanded, with the exception that I would eliminate the requirement that plaintiffs supply copies of statutes and court decisions.

Where the theories by which plaintiffs compute their several claims of damages are unclear, the defendants are entitled to particulars of such damage so that they will be able to properly prepare for trial. (See Shaw v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Keefe v. . LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. Ferreri v. Dworman Associates, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Shaw v. StoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908

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

Powered by the Exa API