Blaikie v. Borden Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blaikie v. Borden Co.

29 A.D.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4231

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

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 932 (Blaikie v. Borden Co.) 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

Blaikie v. Borden Co., 29 A.D.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 2, 1967, granting motion by plaintiff for leave to replead his individual cause of action and directing service of his amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, the motion denied and the amended complaint dismissed. Leave to replead further is denied. Still unremedied, in our opinion, are the deficiencies which were noted in connection with the original complaint (see 27 A D 2d 804). The affidavit by plaintiff which is now included in the record falls short of meeting the requirement that “ there must be some evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported” (Cushman <& Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133, 135), indeed so far short that no further attempt to replead may be countenanced. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered on June 2, 1967, granting motion by plaintiff for leave to replead his individual cause of action and directing service of his amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, the motion denied and the amended complaint dismissed. Leave to replead further is denied. Still unremedied, in our opinion, are the deficiencies which were noted in connection with the original complaint (see 27 A D 2d 804). The affidavit by plaintiff which is now included in the record falls short of meeting the requirement that “ there must be some evidentiary showing that the claim can be supported” (Cushman <& Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133, 135), indeed so far short that no further attempt to replead may be countenanced. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 932, 289 N.Y.S.2d 260, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaikie-v-borden-co-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack