Legal Opinion

Shanik v. Shanik

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1955PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGolden, J.

Motion by defendant for a bill of particulars. Plaintiff argues that a bill is not required in a matrimonial action where the complaint alleges a general course of conduct, citing Earle v. Earle (79 App. Div. 631, opinion in 79 N. Y. S. 613, 614) and Loeb v. Loeb (240 App. Div. 912). In the Earle case, the pleading set forth ‘1 many particulars of the cruel and inhuman treatment upon which the wife relies to establish her cause of action, and, we think, sufficiently complies with the requirements of section 1764. of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes that the complaint in an action…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Earle v. EarleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  2. Loeb v. LoebAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Charles v. CharlesNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Schieman v. SchiemanNew York Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API