Legal Opinion

Thoma v. Koeppen

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided February 15, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Paddock v. PalmerNew York Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Reader v. HagginAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  3. Maxherman Co. v. AlperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  4. Faller v. RangerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  5. 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

  1. In re the Estate of BrittonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1938
  2. Anello v. KussNew York Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API