Case Name: Jack P. Friedman, Doing Business under the Name of Central Electric Alarms, Appellant, v. Elsie Halpern et al., Copartners, Doing Business under the Name of Triboro Burglar Alarm Co., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1945-11-05
Citations: 269 A.D. 984
Docket Number: Appeal No. 2
Parties: Jack P. Friedman, Doing Business under the Name of Central Electric Alarms, Appellant, v. Elsie Halpern et al., Copartners, Doing Business under the Name of Triboro Burglar Alarm Co., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 269
Pages: 984–984

Head Matter:
Jack P. Friedman, Doing Business under the Name of Central Electric Alarms, Appellant, v. Elsie Halpern et al., Copartners, Doing Business under the Name of Triboro Burglar Alarm Co., Respondents.
(Appeal No. 2.)

Opinion:
In an action to restrain the violation of a covenant against engaging in certain business in a specified area, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants' motion to preclude, unless a bill of particulars in compliance with an earlier order therefor be served within twenty days. Appeal dismissed as academic, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondents, as it appears that a bill of particulars in compliance with the order of preclusion was served by plaintiff prior to his taking the appeal therefrom. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Cars-well, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur.