Legal Opinion

Baright v. Walska

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

Decided April 3, 1925Published

1Per curiam

The judgment and order should be reversed on the following grounds:

1. Evidence as to legal services rendered not included in the bill of particulars was improperly received over the objection of defendant and to which exception was duly taken. (Smiley Steel Co. v. Schmoll, 200 App. Div. 655; Pace v. Amend, 164 id. 209; citing Aub v. Hoffmann, 120 id. 50, 52; Dodge v. Weill, 158 N. Y. 346.)

2. The alleged services were rendered between January 30, 1919, and September 30, 1920. The receipt in evidence of a letter from defendant's attorneys written on August 30, 1921, nearly two years after the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Randall v. . PackardNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Dodge v. . WeillNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Hoag v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  4. Smiley Steel Co. v. SchmollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API