Case ID: nys_153/html/1112-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEZENDORF, Respondent, v. POPPKE, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    May 28, 1915.)
    Action by Alexander Dezendorf, an infant, etc., against John F. Poppke.
   PER CURIAM.

Although defendant did not seek a bill of particulars till on the eve of trial, there is no evidence that plaintiff had been harmed by such delay, since, if ready to go to trial, plaintiff must know what he is undertaking to prove, and hence can give the particulars asked for. Mere laches, without other prejudice to plaintiff, is not a sufficient ground to deny such application. Convery v. Marrin, 128 App. Div. 265, 112 N. Y. Supp. 673. The order of the _ County Court of Kings County, denying motion for a bill of particulars on the ground of laches, is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See, also, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1112.