History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mayer v. Mayer
29 A.D. 393
N.Y. App. Div.
1898
Check Treatment
Pee Curiam:

The affidavit upon which the motion for a bill of particulars is based was made by the plaintiff’s attorney only. No reason is given why it was not made by the plaintiff. It has often been held that such an affidavit is entirely insufficient to warrant the granting of a • bill of particulars. (Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Proc. Rep. 215.)

For that reason the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars-costs.

Present ■—Barrett, Rumsey, O'Brien and McLaughlin, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Mayer v. Mayer
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jul 1, 1898
Citation: 29 A.D. 393
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.