Cook v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cook v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad

23 A.D.2d 709, 257 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 709 (Cook v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad) 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

Cook v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad, 23 A.D.2d 709, 257 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Special Term correctly ordered stricken certain subdivisions of paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ complaints (Bástele v. Lehigh & New England B. B. Co., 9 A D 2d 692; Ames v. Pennsylvania B. B. Co., 18 Mise 2d 1075). The appellants rely heavily on Daribois v. New York Cent. B. B. Co. (12 N Y 2d 234) but that case did not concern pleading and is in no way at variance with the long-recognized rules discussed in Bastek and Ames. The court was correct also in not granting leave to the plaintiffs to serve amended complaints as proof of all of the stricken allegations may, insofar as legally admissible, be received under the remaining allegations of the complaints. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Special Term correctly ordered stricken certain subdivisions of paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ complaints (Bástele v. Lehigh & New England B. B. Co., 9 A D 2d 692; Ames v. Pennsylvania B. B. Co., 18 Mise 2d 1075). The appellants rely heavily on Daribois v. New York Cent. B. B. Co. (12 N Y 2d 234) but that case did not concern pleading and is in no way at variance with the long-recognized rules discussed in Bastek and Ames. The court was correct also in not granting leave to the plaintiffs to serve amended complaints as proof of all of the stricken allegations may, insofar as legally admissible, be received under the remaining allegations of the complaints. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 709, 257 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-delaware-hudson-railroad-nyappdiv-1965.