Case ID: nys_47/html/0562-01.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

(21 App. Div. 475.)
    KING et al. v. ROSS.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    October 15, 1897.)
    Bill op Particulars.
    A bill of particulars cannot be required from a defendant where the answer contains only admissions and denials.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by William Dehon King and others against Eugenia A. W. Ross. Erom an order granting a motion for a bill of particulars, defendant appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, WILLIAMS, and PATTERSON, JJ.
    N. G. Johnson, for appellant.
    R. L. Sweezy, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The order should be reversed on the ground that the answer contains only admissions and denials, and therefore no bill of particulars can be ordered to be made by the defendant. Goddard v. Medicine Co., 52 Hun, 85, 5 N. Y. Supp. 119.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.