Case Name: ABRAITIS v. CRANDALL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05-18
Citations: 129 N.Y.S. 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: ABRAITIS v. CRANDALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 129
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
ABRAITIS v. CRANDALL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May 18, 1911.)
Libel and Slander (§ 99 )—Action—Bill of Particulars—Persons Addressed.
In an action for slander, the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars specifying the names and number of persons in whose presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken, in order to avoid surprise at the trial.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. § 233; Dec. Dig. § 99. ]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
' Action by Lillian Abraitis against Joel E. Crandall. From an order of the City Court of the City of New York denying a motion for a bill of particulars, defendant appeals.
Order modified, and, as modified, affirmed.
Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ.
Mortimer E. Joiner, for appellant.
Frank J. McCoy, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from part of an order which denies in part defendant's motion for a bill of particulars. The action is 'for slander. The part of the order appealed from denies defendant's motion that plaintiff be required to specify "the names and number of persons in whose presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken of plaintiff." To prevent surprise at the trial, defendant should have notice of the time'and place and the persons in whose presence the slanderous words were spoken. See Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460, 78 N. Y. Supp. 327. The denial of defendant's motion in this respect was error.
The order is therefore modified, so as to provide that plaintiff shall, in her bill of particulars, specify the names of witnesses in whose presence and hearing the alleged defamatory words were spoken, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant.