Case Name: Charles Donohoe et al., Resp'ts, v. William L. Pomeroy, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-06-29
Citations: 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Donohoe et al., Resp’ts, v. William L. Pomeroy, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 47
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
Charles Donohoe et al., Resp’ts, v. William L. Pomeroy, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed June 29, 1892.)
•Bill of particulars—Attorney’s bill.
A bill of particulars served in an action by an attorney for professional services, which states the items of service with a claim for a gross sum, is sufficient; it is not necessary that a charge be affixed to each particular item.
Appeal from order denying motion of defendants for a further bill of particulars.
E. C. Boardman, for app’lt; B. N. Cardozo, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
—The action was brought to recover the value of certain services claimed to have been rendered by the plaintiffs as attorneys for the defendant, and also for certain disbursements. In response to the defendant's demand for a bill of particulars, the plaintiffs served an itemized bill, but none of the items of service has its value affixed to it, and the bill of particulars after enumerating the items of service claims a gross sum.
It would appear that the services were rendered in different actions and in advising the defendant as to his affairs generally. Thereupon the.defendant made a motion for a further bill of particulars, which was denied : and from th^ order thereupon entéred this appeal is taken.
We do not see but what the defendant has received all the information which is necessary for him to prepare for trial by the bill of particulars already received, All the services for which claim is made in the complaint áre set forth with great particular ity in the bill furnished. It cannot be claimed that an attorney under such circumstances is bound to ¿ffix a charge for each particular service, because they may be so blended and related to each other that it is impossible to separate one service from another. The defendant is aware of all the services which were rendered, and the general charge which is made therefor. If he desires to dispute the service he has all the information necessary for him to do so"; and if he desires to dispute the value of such services he has ample opportunity to prepare for such an issue.
We think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
O'Brien, J., concurs.