Opinion · Nylaw New York

ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION v. ALDERSON, 274 App. Div. 802 (1948)

ITALIAN COOK OIL Corp., Respondent, v. W. LYSLE ALDERSON et al.,Individually & as Copartners Doing Bus. under the Name of ZIMMERMANALDERSON CARR Co., Appellants., 274 A.D. 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1948)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1948-06-14
Topic: general

ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION v. ALDERSON, 274 App. Div. 802 (1948) ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION, Respondent, v. W. LYSLE ALDERSON et al.,Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of ZIMMERMANALDERSON CARR COMPANY, Appellants.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION v. ALDERSON, 274 App. Div. 802 (1948). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION v. ALDERSON,274 App. Div. 802(1948)

ITALIAN COOK OIL CORPORATION, Respondent, v. W. LYSLE ALDERSON et al.,

Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of ZIMMERMAN

ALDERSON CARR COMPANY, Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

June 14, 1948.

In an action to recover damages for fraud, defendants appeal from so much of an order as grants plaintiff's motion to strike the first and second separate and complete defenses from their answer; grants plaintiff's motion to vacate their notice of examination before trial; and grants in part plaintiff's motion to modify their demand for a bill of particulars. Order modified on the law by striking therefrom the provision modifying item 4 of defendants' demand for a bill of particulars; and by adding to the last ordering paragraph, which directs the service of a bill of particulars by plaintiff,Page 803a provision granting item 4 in its entirety. As thus modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. The bill of particulars is to be served within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The matters alleged in defendants' separate defenses were provable under their general denial. The defenses were, therefore, properly stricken from the answer; and defendants were not entitled to an examination before trial based thereon. Item 4 of the demand for a bill of particulars should have been allowed without modification. Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.