From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biehayn v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 1908
123 App. Div. 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

January 10, 1908.

Bayard H. Ames and Walter Henry Wood [ Henry A. Robinson with them on the brief], for the appellant.

Ralph G. Barclay [ Robert Stewart with him on the brief], for the respondent.


This is an action for personal injuries. The defendant appeals from an order denying a motion for a bill of particulars respecting the plaintiff's injuries. The complaint contains a general allegation that the plaintiff was permanently injured, followed by a statement that "his left hip was bruised and injured, his nervous system was shocked and injured, and he was otherwise bruised and injured about the head, body and limbs." It is well settled that in such case the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars specifying the injuries claimed to be permanent. The physical examination authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 873) does not serve the purpose of a bill of particulars. ( Baker v. New York City Railway Co., 116 App. Div. 858; 102 N.Y. Supp. 276.)

The order should be reversed and the motion granted, requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars specifying the injuries claimed to be permanent.

WOODWARD, GAYNOR and RICH, JJ., concurred; HIRSCHBERG, P.J., not voting.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars specifying the injuries claimed to be permanent, with costs.


Summaries of

Biehayn v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 10, 1908
123 App. Div. 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Biehayn v. New York City Railway Co.

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS E. BIEHAYN, an Infant, by ALBERT BIEHAYN, His Guardian ad Litem…

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

Date published: Jan 10, 1908

Citations

123 App. Div. 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
108 N.Y.S. 66

Citing Cases

Del Ra v. Vaughan

This court does not conceive that the function of the bill of particulars is to supplant the examination…