Eighth Ninth Avenues R. Co. v. City of New York

Full title: EIGHTH AND NINTH AVENUES RAILWAY COMPANY and Others, Respondents, v. THE…

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

Date published: Nov 2, 1928

224 App. Div. 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

231 N.Y.S. 262

Opinion

November 2, 1928.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Charles V. Nellany of counsel [ Frank R. Rubel with him on the brief; George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel], for the defendant the City of New York.

William G. Fullen, special counsel for the Board of Transportation of the City of New York and its members.

John F. Collins of counsel [ Arthur C. Kahn and Harry Merwin with him on the brief; Bandler, Haas Collins and James J. Mahoney, attorneys], for the defendant, respondent, appellant, Moranti Raymond, Inc.

Franklin Nevius of counsel [ Kellogg Rose, attorneys], for the defendants, respondents, appellants, Frederick L. Cranford-Charles H. Locher, Inc., and the Arthur A. Johnson Corporation.

Edward M. Grout of counsel [ Dean Potter with him on the brief; Edward M. Grout Paul Grout, attorneys], for defendants, respondents, appellants, George H. Flinn and George H. Flinn Corporation.

Isidor Bregoff of counsel [ O'Brien, Boardman, Fox, Memhard Early, attorneys], for the plaintiffs, respondents.

MARTIN, J.

The situation here is somewhat similar to that presented in the appeal by the defendant Rosenthal Engineering Contracting Company, Inc., decision in which is handed down herewith. ( Eighth Ninth Avenues R. Co. v. City of New York, 224 App. Div. 467.) Here, however, the court granted the application to compel the city of New York and the Board of Transportation of the City of New York to serve a bill of particulars and denied the application to compel the plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars on the defendant, appellant.

The orders granting the motion should be affirmed, with leave to the city of New York and the Board of Transportation to apply for a bill of particulars to be served by plaintiffs which is to be similar in all respects to and coextensive with the bill of particulars which the court has directed the city of New York and the Board of Transportation to serve upon the other defendants. The city of New York and the Board of Transportation to be given sufficient time to comply with this order.

DOWLING, P.J., FINCH, McAVOY and PROSKAUER, JJ., concur.

Orders granting motions for bills of particulars affirmed, with leave to defendants the city of New York and the Board of Transportation to apply for a bill of particulars to be served by plaintiffs, which is to be similar to and coextensive with the bill of particulars which the city and the Board of Transportation are directed to serve on the other defendants. The city and said Board to have sufficient time to comply with this order. Settle orders on notice.