Hyperlawhypertext legal database Gallerstein v. Manhattan Railroad 57 N.Y.S. 394

← Cases

Gallerstein v. Manhattan Railroad

57 N.Y.S. 394 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1899-01-03 English

Contents

Majority

p. 394
GALLERSTEIN v. MANHATTAN R. CO.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
January 3, 1899.)

Headnote

Pleading—Bill or Particulars.
In an action for personal injuries, where defendant denies any knowledge as to the allegations of the complaint, a bill of particulars setting forth all the details of the accident complained of should be filed by plaintiff.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Phineas G-allerstein, an infant, by William Gallerstein, his guardian ad litem, against the Manhattan Railroad Company, to recoyer for personal injuries. From an order requiring plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars showing the date and time and particulars of the accident, the particulars of the injuries, and the items of special damages, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and O’DWYER and OLCOTT, JJ.
Emanuel Herz, for appellant.
Charles A. Gardiner, for respondent..

The order appealed from must be affirmed. It is based upon the complaint, answer, and an affidavit made by the defendant’s attorney. Concerning all the allegations contained in the complaint, the defendant denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation thereof. The affidavit of its attorney amplifies and particularizes this denial, and

p. 395
shows that defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations in said complaint, and upon which, of course, it is apparent plaintiff bases this action. It is therefore apparent to us that defendant has no knowledge or information which would enable it to successfully defend this action, unless the particulars asked for and granted by the order appealed from are given it. Such .order, in our judgment, is just and reasonable, and imposes upon plaintiff no unjust or unfair requirement. All the details asked for and granted are certainly within the knowledge of plaintiff, and should be freely given by him. He is not an infant of 12 years. He is 19 years old, and should be, and undoubtedly is, able to do all that is required by the order in question, which is hereby affirmed, with costs to respondent.