Legal Opinion

Hackett v. Walters

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1937PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtPersonius, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for legal services and disbursements. The defendants move for a bill of particulars under paragraph (b) of rule 115 of the Buies of Civil Practice. No demand was served.

The moving papers are insufficient. The motion is supported only by the affidavit of the defendants’ attorney. It shows no reason for failing to produce an affidavit by the defendants, or one of them. The attorney does not claim to have any personal knowledge of the facts. He contents himself with the allegation that he has talked with the defendants concerning the facts of the case and that they…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. General Film Co. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance of LiverpoolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Emspak v. ConroyNew York Supreme Court · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API