Mertage v. Bennett — 59 N.Y. Super. Ct. 572

Majority

p. 572

JAMES S. MERTAGE, Respondent v. SIDNEY A. BENNETT, Appellant.

Headnote

■Bill of particulars, when not ordered. The complaint fully set forth the ■ contract to recover damages for a breach of which the action was brought, and its term, from which it appears that the contract toas made for a certain sp>ecified term, and ai a -rate agreed on, and that under it the plaint- ■ ought to recover for the term specified (except for jhe first two weeks') . -1 at the rate agreed on. Held, that a motion for a bill of particulars \ ■ as properly denied.

Before Freedman, Dugro and Gildersleewe, JJ.

Decided July 2, 1891.

p. 573

Appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars of plaintiff’s claim.

Sol Kohn, attorney and of counsel, for appellant.

Isaac L. Sink, attorney and of counsel, for respondent.

The Court (Freedman, J., writing, Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurring) held as stated in the headnote.