
    HEILPERIN v. LEVY.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    January 19, 1909.)
    1. Pleading (§ 318)—Bill of Particulars of Defense.
    , A bill of particulars of the defense of payment will not be ordered.
    [Ed. Note!—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 969; Dec. Dig. § 318.*]
    2. Pleading (§ 318*)—Bill of Particulars.
    A bill of particulars as to a defense will not be ordered, when the answer consists simply of denials of plaintiff’s allegations of ownership of the bond and mortgage sued on.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 969; Dec. Dig. § 318.*]
    
      Action by one Heilperin against one Levy.
    Motion for a bill of particulars denied.
    J. A. Seidman, for plaintiff.
    Arnstein & Levy, for defendant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   ERLANGER, J.

Particulars of the defense of payment cannot be ordered. Barone v. O’Leary, 44 App. Div. 418, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1131. As to the other matters, the allegations are merely in effect denials of plaintiff’s allegations of ownership of the bond and mortgage referred to in the complaint. Particulars will not be ordered when the answer is merely a refutation of plaintiff’s assertions, nor will a party be required to disclose his evidence. Smith v. Anderson, 126 App. Div. 24, 110 N. Y. Supp. 191. In a proper case, a copy of an instrument will be ordered to be given; but this is not such a case.

Motion denied.  