Hyperlawhypertext legal database Loewenthal v. Globe & Rutgers Insurance 116 N.Y.S. 454

← Cases

Loewenthal v. Globe & Rutgers Insurance

116 N.Y.S. 454 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1909-04-30 English

Delivered by RICH, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 454
LOEWENTHAL v. GLOBE & RUTGERS INS. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 30, 1909.)

Headnote

Appeal -and Error (§ 960[1] )—Discretion of Trial Court—Review.
The granting or withholding of a bill of particulars is within the discretion of the court, and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless abused.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3834; Dec. Dig. § 960.*]
Appeal from Special Term, Nassau County.
Action by Irwin S. Loewenthal against the Globe & Rutgers Insur-' anee Company. From an order requiring plaintiff t’o furnish an additional and further bill of particulars, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, GAYNOR, BURR, and RICH, JJ.
George H. Brace, for appellant.
F. O. Affeld, Jr., for respondent.

This court held, in Spencer v. Ft. Orange Paper Co., 74 App. Div. 74 , 77 N. Y. Supp. 251 , that:

“The granting or withholding of a bill of particulars is within the discretion of the court, and, where there has been no abuse of this discretion, the appellate courts will not, as a rule, interfere.”

This principle has been universally adopted by the appellate courts of this state. The record in the case at bar presents no abuse of discretion, and the order must be affirmed, with’$10 costs and disburse- ' ments. All concur.

Cases cited