Bowman v. Tooker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowman v. Tooker

278 A.D. 951, 105 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344

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

DecidedJune 11, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 951 (Bowman v. Tooker) 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

Bowman v. Tooker, 278 A.D. 951, 105 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to compel plaintiff to amend the complaint so as to separately state and number causes of action and to make more definite and certain stated allegations thereof affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants may answer the complaint within ten days after entry of the order hereon. As we read the complaint, it alleges but one cause of action upon a single contract of employment for the amount alleged to be due plaintiff at the commencement of the action, and the reference therein to an account stated for the year 1949 is merely an evidentiary allegation, not the statement of another cause of action. (Leiser v. McDowell, 69 App. Div. 444, 447; Pittsfield Nat. Bank V. Tailer, 60 Hun 130, 131; McKinney V. C. I. T. Corp., 263 App. Div. 1066; Payne v. New York, S. é W. B. B. Co., 201 N. Y. 436, 441.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to compel plaintiff to amend the complaint so as to separately state and number causes of action and to make more definite and certain stated allegations thereof affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants may answer the complaint within ten days after entry of the order hereon. As we read the complaint, it alleges but one cause of action upon a single contract of employment for the amount alleged to be due plaintiff at the commencement of the action, and the reference therein to an account stated for the year 1949 is merely an evidentiary allegation, not the statement of another cause of action. (Leiser v. McDowell, 69 App. Div. 444, 447; Pittsfield Nat. Bank V. Tailer, 60 Hun 130, 131; McKinney V. C. I. T. Corp., 263 App. Div. 1066; Payne v. New York, S. é W. B. B. Co., 201 N. Y. 436, 441.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 951, 105 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-tooker-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack