Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910

Romeas v. Boettger

Romeas v. Boettger
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 21, 1910
120 N.Y.S. 754 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Henry A. Vieu, for appellant., Lowen B. Ginn, for respondent.

Romeas v. Boettger

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The appeal from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a reargument is not appealable to this court. Peterson v. Felt, 61 App. Div. 176, 70 N. Y. Supp. 440; Tucker v. Dudley, 104 App. Div. 191, 93 N. Y. Supp. 355.

The order granting the bill of particulars should be modified, by striking therefrom the word “exact,” and that portion of the order which gives costs to the defendant, and there should be inserted! in said order a provision that it should not be construed to prevent the plaintiff from proving his cause of action, if it should appear that others than those specified in the bill of particulars were present at the time the words complained of were spoken (Mason v. Clark, 75 App. Div. 460, 78 N. Y. Supp. 327), and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, but with disbursements to appellant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.