items claim in New York

2012Plaintiffs should be precluded from offering evidence at trial as to loss of personal property because they disposed of the items they claim were damaged, thereby preventing defendants from challenging the validity and extent of those claims (see Sguitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201 [1st Dept 1998]).

2012Plaintiffs should be precluded from offering evidence at trial as to loss of personal property because they disposed of the items they claim were damaged, thereby preventing defendants from challenging the validity and extent of those claims (see Sguitieri v City of New York, 248 AD2d 201 [1st Dept 1998]).

2011Corp., 135 AD2d 947 [1987]; see also CPLR 3014).

1978The verified amended answer, insofar as it contained a general denial to the complaint, did not comply with the requirements of that section and hence was insufficient to place the $14,600.16 balance in issue (Duban v Platt, 23 AD2d 660 , affd 17 NY2d 526 ; Offset Paperback Mfrs. v Banner Press, 47 AD2d 733 ).

1978The verified amended answer, insofar as it contained a general denial to the complaint, did not comply with the requirements of that section and hence was insufficient to place the $14,600.16 balance in issue (Duban v Platt, 23 AD2d 660 , affd 17 NY2d 526 ; Offset Paperback Mfrs. v Banner Press, 47 AD2d 733 ).

1978The verified amended answer, insofar as it contained a general denial to the complaint, did not comply with the requirements of that section and hence was insufficient to place the $14,600.16 balance in issue (Duban v Platt, 23 AD2d 660 , affd 17 NY2d 526 ; Offset Paperback Mfrs. v Banner Press, 47 AD2d 733 ).

1965Usually a preliminary injunction will not be granted which disposes of the entire cause of action (Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, 1 A D 2d 905; Acorn Employment Serv. v. Moss, 261 App. Div. 178 ); and despite the existence of unused administrative remedies for the protection of an owner in this type of case, it has been held error to grant summary judgment where the answer raises questions of fact.

1963The purpose of the Lien Law is to protect labor and material men and the equities in this case favor the contention of the plaintiff (Kane Co. v. Kinney, 174 N. Y. 69, 73 ; Wilson’s Plumbing Shop on Wheels v. Trustees of Dartmouth Coll., supra, p. 380, citing Jones v. Menke, 168 N. Y. 61 ; Lien Law, § 23).

1963The purpose of the Lien Law is to protect labor and material men and the equities in this case favor the contention of the plaintiff (Kane Co. v. Kinney, 174 N. Y. 69, 73 ; Wilson’s Plumbing Shop on Wheels v. Trustees of Dartmouth Coll., supra, p. 380, citing Jones v. Menke, 168 N. Y. 61 ; Lien Law, § 23).

1960(O’Connor-Sullivan, Inc. v. Otto, 283 App. Div. 269 .) The plaintiff has set forth the items of its claim in the schedule attached to the complaint by merely referring to invoice numbers and the dates thereof.

1954(Nichols v. State of New York, 278 App. Div. 1015 .) The other items of the claim of Mayo Brown must be dismissed.

1951The Third Department reiterates the rule expressed in Agostini v. State of New York (Claim No. 24,345, 255 App. Div. 264 [1938]) and upholds our award of interest in Banko, Inc., v. State of New York (Claim No. 25,336, 186 Misc. 491 , supra [1946]) and other similar cases.

1951The decision of the Third Department in Busciano é Son Gorp. v. State of New York (Claim No. 28,309, 278 App. Div. 999 ) cited supra in footnote 1, was handed down while the issues on the several items in this claim were under consideration and after we had written the above sentences on the subject of interest for incorporation in this opinion.

1951The Third Department reiterates the rule expressed in Agostini v. State of New York (Claim No. 24,345, 255 App. Div. 264 [1938]) and upholds our award of interest in Banko, Inc., v. State of New York (Claim No. 25,336, 186 Misc. 491 , supra [1946]) and other similar cases.

1922While it is probably correct that the audit and payment of some of the items of a claim is tantamount to a rejection of the remaining items (Waples Co. v. State of New York, 16 Ct. Cl.

1922Rep. 54 ) no audit or rejection can occur under the circumstances in evidence, where neither the claim now in litigation, nor any of its items, were presented to the comptroller, nor were involved in the account on which he acted, and of all of which he had no notice but was wholly ignorant. “ To audit is to hear, to examine, to adjust, allow or disallow.” O’Neil v. State of New York, 223 N. Y. 40 .

1912While it is not often practicable to furnish the items of a claim for general damages, and for that reason such particulars are not usually required (Oliver Refining Company v. Aspegren, 140 App. Div. 549 ), we think this case, does not fall within that rule.

1901Co. ( 160 Mass. 447 ) it was held that “ where one, who has sustained injuries to his clothing and also to his person by a railroad accident, has been induced by fraud to execute to the railroad corporation a receipt in full and a release for both injuries, upon being paid a small sum, which was understood by him to be compensation merely for the injuries to his clothing, he need not return the money so received before bringing an action for the personal injuries.” But the defendant says that the plaintiff had but one cause of action for all the injuries, though different items for damages, an

1894The record does not show whether the defendant has or has not published a notice to creditors to present their claims, and it was held in Salomon v. Heichel, 4 Dem.

1884Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 id., 318 ;.

1884The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in which he specified, as the items of his claim : “Professional services as follows: Presenting'the will to the Surrogate, attending to and securing the probate of the same, and obtaining letters testamentary; preparation of papers, applying to the Surrogate, and obtaining the release of one of the executors ; counsel, advice and services, in and about various other matters of the estate; disbursements.” The following opinion was filed" on'October 13th, 1884: The Surrogate.—The claim, for whose payment this application is made, is a claim against dece