Legal Opinion

Ivey v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 12, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum: As we read rule 115 of the Rules of *973Civil Practice, the only instances where the Special Term has authority to entertain an attack against a bill o£ particulars are (1) to preclude for failure to serve a bill complying either with a demand or an order (rule 115, subd. [e]), or (2) to preclude where the bill is defective or insufficient (rule 115, subd. [d]; see also Matthews v. Hubbard, 47 N. Y. 428). In this instance, we do not have presented either of the two situations above indicated. The information set forth in the bill of particulars was in compliance with either an order…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matthews v. . HubbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Force v. Tracy Towing Lines, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Rico v. PierleoniNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Rosini v. CunananAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. Nordhauser v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Ray v. Hertz Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Pistorio v. LevineNew York Supreme Court · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API