Opinion
June 10, 1969
Order entered August 1, 1968, reversed on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and motion to vacate the demand for bill of particulars granted. Defendant should not be required to detail in a bill of particulars the statutes and decisional law upon which it relies. (See Gevinson v. Kirkeby-Natus Corp., 26 A.D.2d 71. ) Since the court is required to take judicial notice of the law of New York without evidence to establish it (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 7) the defendant need not particularize the provisions of such law.
Concur — Capozzoli, J.P., Tilzer, Markewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.