State v. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order entered December 19, 1969 modified on the law and facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, to the extent of striking items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, *77010, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, and as so modified, affirmed. The complaint in the instant ease spells out the particular charges against defendants under the Donnelly Act (General Business Law, § 340) by identifying the type and nature of the anti-competitive restraint as a boycott plus the overt acts. No further particulars are required to apprise defendants of the cause of action. The purpose of a bill of particulars…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Northway Eng'g v. FELIX INDUSNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Rosario v. General Motors Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Patterson v. Jewish Hospital & Medical CenterNew York Supreme Court · 1978
- Randall v. PechAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Bassett v. Bando Sangsa Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.