Case Name: Harry C. Jacobs, Appellant, v. Max B. Friedman, Respondent
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-07
Citations: 28 Misc. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry C. Jacobs, Appellant, v. Max B. Friedman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Harry C. Jacobs, Appellant, v. Max B. Friedman, Respondent.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
July, 1899.)
Answer — Time not to be extended until after service of bill of particulars — Affidavit.
An order, extending the time to answer for three days after the service of a bill of particulars of the complaint, is improperly granted where the moving affidavit is made by an attorney who fails to disclose why his client did not make it; and such an order is also irregular for the reason that a bill of particulars will not be ordered before answer; nor need it be furnished on a mere demand.
Appeal from an order of the Special Term granting an extension of time in which to answer.
Horwitz & Samuels (Otto Horwitz, of counsel), for appellant.
J. P. Solomon, for respondent.

Opinion:
Hascall, J.
This appeal brings up for review an order of the Special Term granting the defendant an extension of time, in which to answer, for three days after service of a bill of particulars of the plaintiff's claim. The order was made upon the usual direction to show cause with a stay. It appears that the only affidavit submitted to the Special Term, and upon which the order appealed from is grounded, was made by the attorney for the defendant, without disclosing why the proper affidavit could not be made by the party himself. It shows no absence of knowledge, on the part of either the defendant or his attorney, of the particulars constituting the plaintiff's claim. We think, therefore, that the well-considered opinion of the General Term of the Supreme Court, quoted from 21 N. Y. Supp. 342, and other authorities therein set forth, should compel a reversal of the order appealed from in the case at bar. But, if other reason were necessary, it may be found in the fact that a bill of particulars will not be ordered before service of answer (17 App. Div. 328), and that a party will not be required to furnish the bill upon mere demand. To be sure, in the majority of cases, the practice obtains for the attorney to supply his adversary with the particulars upon request being made; but where it is neglected or declined, the party desiring to avail himself of the absence of the bill, must obtain, by motion, an order for the particulars, before the party in default will be precluded from giving evidence of his account at the trial.
Order appealed from reversed, with costs.
Conlan, J., concurs.
Order reversed, with costs.