From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sackman v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 20, 1946
270 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Summary

In Sackman (supra, p. 916) not only was plaintiff's request for a bill confined to affirmative defenses, but acknowledging the very rule asserted by defendant in opposition to the motion in the instant case, the court stated: "Defendant is correct in his contention that a defendant will not be required to furnish a bill of particulars as to denials or admissions contained in an answer."

Summary of this case from McLure v. Greco

Opinion

March 20, 1946.

Present — Taylor, P.J., Dowling, McCurn, Larkin, and Love, JJ.


Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Under this complaint, alleging strict performance, plaintiff is not entitled to a summary judgment. All concur. (The order denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.)


Summaries of

Sackman v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 20, 1946
270 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

In Sackman (supra, p. 916) not only was plaintiff's request for a bill confined to affirmative defenses, but acknowledging the very rule asserted by defendant in opposition to the motion in the instant case, the court stated: "Defendant is correct in his contention that a defendant will not be required to furnish a bill of particulars as to denials or admissions contained in an answer."

Summary of this case from McLure v. Greco
Case details for

Sackman v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:MAE SACKMAN, Appellant, v. CHARLES F. WILLIAMS, JR., Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 20, 1946

Citations

270 App. Div. 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1946)

Citing Cases

McLure v. Greco

In Kleiman ( supra) because the action was for slander and the gravamen of such an action is the utterance of…

Matter of Jesmer v. Beyma

In Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp. ( 263 App. Div. 1017, rearg. den. 264 App. Div. 723) and Sackman v.…