Brodsky v. Rieser

195 A.D. 557, 186 N.Y.S. 841, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 4, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 195 A.D. 557 (Brodsky v. Rieser) 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
Brodsky v. Rieser, 195 A.D. 557, 186 N.Y.S. 841, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Page, J.:

The complaint alleges that the defendant ran into the plaintiff’s son with his automobile and continues:

Third. That after the aforesaid occurrence the plaintiff endeavored to detain the defendant until the arrival of the police authorities, and that the defendant in attempting to leave the scene of the said accident, contrary to and in violation of Section 290, subdivision 3, of the Highway Law,

The defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings. On such a motion the denials in the answer must be ignored and the complaint tested as on a demurrer. If the defendant intentionally started his car with knowledge that the plaintiff had hold of it, he was guilty of an assault; if unintentionally, he was chargeable with negligence.

The plaintiff has sought to allege the cause of action for an assault, but she has neglected to allege that the act was either intentionally or knowingly .or willfully done. Hence the complaint is insufficient. The plaintiff may have a cause of action against the defendant, but it is insufficiently alleged. The court should have granted the plaintiff leave to amend.

[559]*559Therefore, the order will be modified by permitting the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within twenty days after the service of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry thereof on payment of ten dollars costs of motion at Special Term, and as modified the order will be affirmed, without costs.

Clarke, P. J., Dowling and Greenbaum, JJ., concur; Smith, J., concurs in result.

Order modified by providing that plaintiff have leave to serve amended complaint on payment of ten dollars costs of motion at Special Term, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Added by Laws of 1910, chap. 374, as amd. by Laws of 1917, chap. 769.— [Rep.

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

Related

Sarlat v. State
119 Misc. 2d 369 (New York State Court of Claims, 1983)
Sutton Factors Corp. v. Singer
36 Misc. 2d 1000 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Baldinger v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance
15 A.D.2d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Stoike v. Bonasera
243 Ill. App. 281 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Du Pont Automobile Distributors, Inc. v. Du Pont Motors, Inc.
213 A.D. 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D. 557, 186 N.Y.S. 841, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-rieser-nyappdiv-1921.