Summary
In Matter of Wetterau (245 A.D. 822) the court expressly held that particularization to the extent permitted by the Mullin rule was a right of the proponent and affirmed an order which had applied the Mullin rule, on the authority of the Mullin case itself.
Summary of this case from Matter of Van RiperOpinion
July, 1935.
Order of the Surrogate's Court of Dutchess county in so far as it granted proponent's motion for a bill of particulars from the contestants in respect of allegations of fraud asserted by them affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements ( Matter of Mullin, 143 Misc. 256); the particulars to be served within five days from the entry of the order herein. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.