Hyperlawhypertext legal database Romeas v. Boettger 120 N.Y.S. 754

← Cases

Romeas v. Boettger

120 N.Y.S. 754 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1910-01-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 754
ROMEAS v. BOETTGER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 21, 1910.)

Headnote

1. Courts (§ 190[1] )—Municipal Court—Decisions Beview able—Motions for Reargument.
An order of the City Court denying a motion for reargument is not appealable to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases,- see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 190.[1] ]
2. Libel and Slander (§ 99[1] )—Bill of Particulars—Evidence.
In an action for slander, an order granting defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars, specifying those present when the words complained of were spoken, should provide that it should not be construed to prevent the plaintiff from proving his cause of action, if it appeared that others than those specified in the bill of particulars were present at the time the words were spoken.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. § 233; Dec. Dig. § 99.[1] ]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Auguste Romeas against Henry W. Boettger. From an order granting defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars, and an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a reargument, plaintiff appeals. Order denying reargument affirmed, and order granting motion for bill of particulars modified and affirmed!.
Argued before GIEGERICH, DAYTON, and LEHMAN, JJ.
p. 755
Henry A. Vieu, for appellant.
Lowen B. Ginn, for respondent.

The appeal from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a reargument is not appealable to this court. Peterson v. Felt, 61 App. Div. 176 , 70 N. Y. Supp. 440 ; Tucker v. Dudley, 104 App. Div. 191 , 93 N. Y. Supp. 355 .

The order granting the bill of particulars should be modified, by striking therefrom the word “exact,” and that portion of the order which gives costs to the defendant, and there should be inserted! in said order a provision that it should not be construed to prevent the plaintiff from proving his cause of action, if it should appear that others than those specified in the bill of particulars were present at the time the words complained of were spoken (Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460 , 78 N. Y. Supp. 327 ), and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, but with disbursements to appellant.

Cases cited