Case Name: William Loscher, Appellant, v. Willy Hager (Sued as "William" Hager), Respondent, Impleaded with "Adolph" Stempel, the First Names "William" and "Adolph" Being Fictitious, etc.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-06
Citations: 124 A.D. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Loscher, Appellant, v. Willy Hager (Sued as “William” Hager), Respondent, Impleaded with “Adolph” Stempel, the First Names “William” and “Adolph” Being Fictitious, etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
William Loscher, Appellant, v. Willy Hager (Sued as “William” Hager), Respondent, Impleaded with “Adolph” Stempel, the First Names “William” and “Adolph” Being Fictitious, etc.
First Department,
March 6, 1908.
Pleading — bill of particulars — order precluding testimony.
Where a complaint sets out separate causes of action charging two defendants with assault and false imprisonment but alleges no special damage, the .plaintiff will not be required to furnish a bill of particulars giving the names of various persons by whom he was formerly employed, nor will he be" required to give particulars as to the names of the police officers who arrested him when the defendant admits that he called the police to make the arrest.
An order for a bill of particulars should not direct that the plaintiff shall be precluded from giving evidence in case he fails to give the particulars required. A motion to preclude the giving of such evidence should be made only after the plaintiff has failed to comply with the order, or has complied with it insufficiently.
Appeal by the plaintiff, William Losclier, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of December, 1907, granting the respondent’s motion for a bill of particulars of plaintiff’s two separate causes of action.
The complaint sets out separately that defendants falsely accused plaintiff of stealing a stove, and assaulted him.and caused his arrest."
Charles' Fisehér, for the appellant.
Henry F■ Lippold, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
The plaintiff alleges nb special damage. It is, therefore, unnecessary to require him to furnish the names of the. various business concerns with whom he was formerly employed. The defendant admits having called the police officer to arrest plaintiff, and should be at least as well able to ascertain their names as plaintiff is. The order must, therefore, be modified by striking out the third subdivision of the particulars required to be given under the first cause of action, and the first .subdivision of the particulars required to be given under the second cause of action. The direction for the pre- • elusion of evidence in case of plaintiff's failure to give, the required particulars must also be stricken from the order. A motion to that effect may be made hereafter in case the plaintiff fails to comply with this order or complies with it insufficiently.
The order appealed from will be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs.
Present — Patterson, P. -L, Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Order modified as directed in. opinion and as modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. .