Case Name: SCANLON v. WM. HENDERSON, Inc.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-08-14
Citations: 144 N.Y.S. 832
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCANLON v. WM. HENDERSON, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 144
Pages: 832–833

Head Matter:
SCANLON v. WM. HENDERSON, Inc.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
August 14, 1913.)
• 1. Pleading (§ 318 )—Bill of Pabticulabs—Pacts Relative to Defense.
A motion for bill of particulars, so far as seeking to compel defendant to specify the facts relative to defenses pleaded, is to be denied, as calling for evidence, the giving of which is not the office of a bill of particulars.
[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 963-969, 971; Dec. Dig. § 318.*]
2. Pleading (§ 318*)—Bill of Pabticulabs—Names of Pebsons.
Defendant may be required, by bill of particulars, to give the name or names of the person or persons claimed by a pleaded defense to have caused or contributed to the accident sued for.
[Ed. Note.—Por other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 963-969, 971; Dec. Dig. § 318.*]
Action by one Scanlon against William Henderson, Incorporated. Heard on plaintiff’s motion for bill of particulars. Denied, except in one particular.
Don R. Almy, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Lyman A. Spalding, of New York City, for defendant.
Ear other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GIEGERICH, J.
So far as plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant to specify the facts relative to certain defenses which it has pleaded the application must be denied, because it calls for evidence. As was said by the court in Dwyer v. Slattery, 118 App. Div. 345, 346, 103 N. Y. Supp. 433:
"It is not the office of a bill of particulars to expose to his adversary the evidence of the party giving it. The purpose of such a bill is to amplify the pleadings, and to indicate with more particularity than is ordinarily required in a formal plea the nature of the claim made, in order that surprise upon the trial may be avoided, and that the issues may be more intelligently met. Slingerland v. Corwin, 105 App. Div. 310 [93 N. Y. Supp. 953]."
The third item of the demand will be granted to the extent of requiring the defendant to furnish the name or names of the persons who are claimed to have caused or contributed to the accident, but the motion in all other respects is denied, with $10 costs, to abide the event. Settle order'on notice. ,