← Cases

Coin v. Lebenkoff

10 A.D.2d 916 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1960-05-10 English

Contents

Majority

p. 916
Jerome J. Coin, Respondent, v. Abraham Lebenkoff, Appellant.

Order denying motion of defendant-appellant to preclude unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, unless plaintiff-respondent supplies a sufficient bill of particulars in compliance with the demand within 20 days of the entry of the order herein and service thereof. In the absence of a timely motion to vacate or modify a demand for a bill of particulars, the items will not be scrutinized and an order of preclusion will be granted unless the demand is palpably improper (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 115 ; Tomasino v. Prudential Westchester Gorp., 1 A D 2d 781 ; cf. Universal Metal Prods. Go. v. Be-Mo'rnay Budd, 275 App. Div. 575 , in which it was observed that the court might exercise its discretion to deny the motion to preclude, and did so on finding the demand “elaborate and oppressive”. Tripp, A Guide to Motion Practice [rev. ed.], § 48). Concur — ■ Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.