Opinion
May 26, 1952.
Appeal by one of several defendants from three orders. Order entered March 3, 1952, modifying appellant's demand for a bill of particulars, modified by striking out of subdivision (a) of the second ordering paragraph the number "3", and by adding to said paragraph a subdivision designated as "h", reading: "Item 3 is modified to read: `Itemize each and every act of service rendered by plaintiff in connection with performance of the contract referred to in Paragraph 11 of the amended complaint, specifying the date and substance of each such act'"; by inserting, after the word "thereof" in each of subdivisions (d) and (e) of said paragraph, the following: "and, if any such acts were the making of a contract or an agreement affecting a contract, set forth a copy of each thereof, if in writing, and the substance of each thereof, if oral"; and by striking out of subdivision (g) of said paragraph all matter following the word "demand", and by substituting in lieu thereof the following: "the words `exact' and `complete' are deleted therefrom." As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The denials in appellant's answer of allegations of due performance by plaintiff contained in the complaint were sufficiently specific and particular, in compliance with rule 92 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to raise an issue as to services rendered by plaintiff in connection with such performance. Appellant is entitled to particulars of the terms of any agreement made by it which is claimed to have constituted or contributed to the prevention of performance by plaintiff and the breach by appellant. As to the quantum meruit cause of action, appellant is entitled to specific particulars of the claimed services, and should not have been limited to a general statement. Order entered March 20, 1952, granting plaintiff's motion for an examination before trial, modified by striking out of the second ordering paragraph the items numbered "20" and "28". As so modifield, the order is affirmed, without costs. Item "20" does not state an issue of fact, but rather the conclusion that certain acts "were done in bad faith". Item "28" seeks examination as to breach of a contract which is not in issue. Order entered March 20, 1952, denying appellant's motion to vacate plaintiff's demand for a bill of particulars, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Johnston, Acting P.J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.