Legal Opinion

Townsend v. Halbert

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1944PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSantry, J.

This is a motion by the defendant to require the plaintiff, Robert Townsend, to furnish further particulars pursuant to a demand heretofore made. The said plaintiffs have furnished a bill of particulars of some of the items contained in the demand, but have failed to furnish any particulars as to the following items required therein:

“ 6. If plaintiff Robert Townsend’s automobile is covered by collision insurance, state the name and address of the collision carrier;

‘ ‘ 7. State whether or not said collision policy covers the plaintiff Robert Townsend’s car for full collision loss or whether…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Hooker Electrochemical Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Matthews v. . HubbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  3. Yezek v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Sisson v. HassettNew York Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Zecchini v. MayerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Desimone v. RobertsonNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. In re the Estate of KadarNew York Surrogate's Court · 1956
  3. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. SmithBinghamton City Court · 1949
  4. Kellogg v. MichaelsNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Meltsner v. PosmanickCity of New York Municipal Court · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API