Hyperlawhypertext legal database Hollander v. Hudson 125 N.Y.S. 138

← Cases

Hollander v. Hudson

125 N.Y.S. 138 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1910-10-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 138
HOLLANDER v. HUDSON et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 21, 1910.)

Headnote

Pleading (§ 317[1] )—'Complaint—Bill of Pabticulabs—Negligence.
In an action for injuries caused by the fall of a column, plaintiff should be required to state in a bill of particulars whether he claimed the column was dangerous, unsafe, insecure, or defective, if he had knowledge of facts supporting such claim; otherwise, to state under oath that he did not intend to make such claims, or was not in possession of any knowledge or information on which to base them.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 954-962; Dec. Dig. § 317.*]
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by Edward Hollander against Charles I. Hudson and another. From an order denying defendants’ motion for a bill of particulars, they appeal.
Modified and affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and EAUGHEIN, CEARKE, McLaughlin, and scott, JJ.
John G. Saxe, for appellants.
Nathan D. Stern, for respondent.

The defendants are entitled to be advised as to what the plaintiff expects to show respecting their alleged negligence.

p. 139
If plaintiff has present knowledge of facts tending to show that the marble column was dangerous, unsafe, insecure, or defective, and proposes to prove such facts upon the trial, he should not be unwilling to so state. The order appealed from will therefore be modified, bjr requiring the plaintiff to state, in addition to what is already required, whether or not it is claimed that the marble column was dangerous or unsafe, and, if so, in what respect or respects it was dangerous and unsafe, and also whether or not it is claimed that said column was insecure or defective, and, if so, in what respects it was insecure or defective. If plaintiff does not intend to make such claims, or is not now in possession of any knowledge or ■ information upon which to base such claims, he can so state under oath.

As so modified, the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellants.