Case Name: William Mori, Respondent, v. Phœbe Pearsall, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-10
Citations: 14 Misc. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Mori, Respondent, v. Phœbe Pearsall, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
William Mori, Respondent, v. Phœbe Pearsall, Appellant.
(City Court of New York
General Term,
October, 1895.)
A judge is not disqualified from taking part in the determination of an appeal from an order by the fact that such order was signed by him, where it was entered upon the decision of another judge and the signing was merely pro forma.
An order for a bill of particulars should not be granted on the affidavit of the attorney.
Groff v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322, followed.
■ Appeal from order directing the defendant-to furnish a bill of particulars.
George O. Ooffin, for appellant.
• ffsselstyn, Heteham & Safford, for respondent.

Opinion:
McCarthy, J.
Although the order from which this appeal is taken was signed by me, it is, however, an appeal from a decision rendered by Justice Fitzsimons.
The signing of the order by me was merely proforma and unnecessary, and, therefore, does not disqualify me "from hearing and determining'this appeal.
This order must be reversed on the opinion of Newburger, J., in Groff, as Assignee, v. Hagan, 13 Misc. Rep. 322.
Order is, therefore, reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion is denied, with leave to renew on proper papers.
Van Wyck, Ch. J., concurs.
Order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with leaye to renew.