Berkowitz v. All Service Laundry Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkowitz v. All Service Laundry Corp.

276 A.D.2d 870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 870 (Berkowitz v. All Service Laundry Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berkowitz v. All Service Laundry Corp., 276 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

[871]*871Nolan, P. J., Cars-well and Sneed, JJ:, concur; Adel and Wenzel, JJ., agree with the holding that the complaint sufficiently alleges employment in the performance of principal duties for more than forty hours per week, and that such type of employment is compensable under section 7 of the Pair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (TJ. S. Code, tit. 29, § 207), but dissent from the holding that the complaint as a whole is sufficient, and vote to reverse the order and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to plead over, on the ground that it does not appear that plaintiff was employed by any one employer for more than forty hours per week. The rule of liberality in construction of pleadings does not save a complaint that is insufficient to state a cause of action (Didier v. Macfadden Publications, 299 N. Y. 49, 53), and a bill of particulars should not be read to supply deficiencies in essential allegations. [See post, p. 917.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[871]*871Nolan, P. J., Cars-well and Sneed, JJ:, concur; Adel and Wenzel, JJ., agree with the holding that the complaint sufficiently alleges employment in the performance of principal duties for more than forty hours per week, and that such type of employment is compensable under section 7 of the Pair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (TJ. S. Code, tit. 29, § 207), but dissent from the holding that the complaint as a whole is sufficient, and vote to reverse the order and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to plead over, on the ground that it does not appear that plaintiff was employed by any one employer for more than forty hours per week. The rule of liberality in construction of pleadings does not save a complaint that is insufficient to state a cause of action (Didier v. Macfadden Publications, 299 N. Y. 49, 53), and a bill of particulars should not be read to supply deficiencies in essential allegations. [See post, p. 917.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-all-service-laundry-corp-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack