Hyperlawhypertext legal database Rosenthal v. Barnett 116 N.Y.S. 239

← Cases

Rosenthal v. Barnett

116 N.Y.S. 239 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1909-04-16 English

Contents

Majority

p. 239
ROSENTHAL v. BARNETT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 16, 1909.)

Headnote

Pleading- (§ 317[1] )—Bill of Particulars—Right to Order.
Where the complaint states the cause of action with sufficient particularity, a bill of particulars, not necessary to protect the rights of the defendant, will not be ordered.
(Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 954; Dec. Dig. § 317.*]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Maurice Rosenthal against Aaron Barnett. From an,order requiring plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars, he appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
G. S. P. Kleeberg, for appellant.
Abraham Gruber, for respondent.

We think that the complaint states the cause of action with sufficient particularity, and that there is nothing in the papers to show that a bill of particulars is necessary to protect the rights of the defendant.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.