
    Mazel Associates, Inc., Respondent, v. Herman A. Bogdan, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 11, 1959.
    
      Milton 1. Weintraub for appellant.
    No one appearing for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The service of a bill of particulars in compliance with a conditional order of preclusion was improperly rejected by the plaintiff and it was error for the lower court to deny defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to accept the bill. This determination, however, is without prejudice to plaintiff’s application for a further bill or final order of preclusion, if it is so advised, upon a statement showing in what respect it deems the bill insufficient.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.  