Hyperlawhypertext legal database Gitzendanner-Muller Co. v. Cherouny Printing & Publishing Co. 149 N.Y.S. 485

← Cases

Gitzendanner-Muller Co. v. Cherouny Printing & Publishing Co.

149 N.Y.S. 485 Court Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHAEAN, JJ. Decision date 1914-10-27 English

Delivered by *486 SEABURY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 485
GITZENDANNER-MULLER CO. v. CHEROUNY PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
October 27, 1914.)

Headnote

Pleading (§ 324*) — Bill of Particulars.
Where plaintiff sought a bill of particulars of defendant’s counterclaim, and defendant attempted to comply with the demand, it was bound to furnish the particulars specified in the demand served.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Pleading, Cent Dig. §§ 980-983, 985; Dec. Dig. § 324.[1] ]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by the Gitzendanner-Muller Company against the Cherouny Printing & Publishing Company. From a City Court order denying plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars of defendant’s counterclaim, it appeals.
Reversed.
Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHAEAN, JJ.
Davis & Mayer, of New York City (Bertram W. Davis, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Graham & Stevenson, of New York City (Archibald Ewing Stevenson, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

The action is for services performed and materials furnished. The defendant alleged a counterclaim, predicated upon the contention that the plaintiff agreed to' reset certain machinery and performed work under this agreement so negligently that the floor of the defendant’s premises gave way, causing the defendant damages in the sum of $1,500. The plaintiff sought a bill of particulars as specified in the demand served. The bill which the defendant furnished was inadequate. The plaintiff was entitled to have the particulars specified in the demand served.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.