Contracts · MBE-tested

Maurice G. Spiro, Respondent, v. The Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, Appellant

228 A.D. 672·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1929·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Maurice G. Spiro, Respondent, v. The Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company, Appellant. [MAJORITY] Order directing bill of particulars of defendant’s affirmative defenses modified by striking out paragraphs 3, 4, 7 and 8 thereof, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The defenses as to which the particulars were sought refer in terms to the “ contract referred to ” in the complaint, and the contract is, therefore, the same contract alleged by plaintiff in Ms complaint, the terms and conditions of wMch he must prove to establish Ms cause of action. No particulars of such contract are, therefore, necessary. Lazansky, P, J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.