Thoma v. Koeppen
City of New York Municipal Court
1Opinion of the CourtGeismar, J.
This motion to preclude presents the question of the propriety and worth-whileness of the not uncommon practice of returning a bill of particulars within twenty-four hours. after service with a statement that the bill being insufficient, the demand-ant declines to accept it. There are two possible situations in which this practice may be indulged: (1) Where the bill is served-after demand (Civ. Prac. Act, § 246); and (2) where the bill is served after order directing it (Civ. Prac. Act, § 247; Rules Civ. Prac. rule 115).
In rank and importance, it would indeed seem that a bill of particulars…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Paddock v. PalmerNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- Reader v. HagginAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Maxherman Co. v. AlperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Faller v. RangerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Losie v. Royal Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Estate of BrittonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
- Anello v. KussNew York Supreme Court · 1956