From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyer v. Grand Union Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 1942
264 App. Div. 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Opinion

May 25, 1942.


Resettled order denying motion of the defendant to preclude the plaintiffs or for a further bill of particulars reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted to the extent of directing plaintiffs, within ten days from the entry of the order hereon, to furnish a further bill of particulars setting forth the injuries sustained by plaintiff Helen Meyer which will be claimed to be permanent and the nature and extent of them, with ten dollars costs. The accident in which plaintiff-wife claims to have sustained personal injuries occurred nearly three years ago. It must be known to her at this time which injuries are permanent or, at least, which of them she will claim to be permanent. We are of opinion that the defendant is entitled to have the plaintiff-wife state in the bill of particulars which injuries will be claimed to be permanent and the nature and extent of them. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Meyer v. Grand Union Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 25, 1942
264 App. Div. 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)
Case details for

Meyer v. Grand Union Company

Case Details

Full title:HELEN MEYER and ERWIN MEYER, Respondents, v. THE GRAND UNION COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 25, 1942

Citations

264 App. Div. 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1942)

Citing Cases

Rotondi v. Vaughan

Since the plaintiff claims local traffic rules, regulations and ordinances were violated, they must be…

Giles v. Cornell

Clearly defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars as to which injuries plaintiff will claim to be…