
    Cornelius Dacey, Plaintiff, v. Rube R. Fogel, Defendant. Theodore Prince, Appellant; Rube R. Fogel, Respondent.
    First Department,
    April 7, 1911.
    Attorney and dliérit — services — bill of particulars.
    Where, on a motion for substitution of attorneys, the attorney originally retained asserted a lied upon the papers for services rendered in thp action and in other matters, and the court ordered a reference to determine the amount due, it is improper before the hearing to require the attorney to furnish a bill of particulars of his claim.
    Appeal -by Theodor,e Prince, an attorney, from an order of of the Supreme Court], made at the, New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day ]of February, 1911, directing the appellant to furnish a bill of particulars of_ a claim for professional services.
    
      Henry S. Bottenhei' n, for the appellant'
    
      Sol. Kohn, for the rjespondent.
   Miller, J.:

The defendant- in this action moved for a substitution of attorneys. The appellant asserted a lien upon the papers. in his possession for services rendered in this action and in other matters. As a condition of the substitution and the delivery of the papers in the appellant’s possession, the court ordered a reference to determine the amount of the appellant’s claim for services. Before the hearing the motion resulting in the order appealed from was made.

The office of a bill of particulars is to amplify a pleading. The respondent has already been apprised of the general nature of the appellant’s claim. The appellant will have to prove, before the referee, the services rendered and their value. The respondent will have an opportunity to cross-examine him, and, after his claim has been fully disclosed, will, of course, be granted any reasonable- adjournment necessary to meet it.Under such circumstances we can see none but an ulterior purpose to be served by. requiring a bill of particulars. (See Mellen v. Mellen, 17 N. Y. Supp. 866.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with costs.'

V

Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ., concurred. '

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.  