Eckert v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eckert v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.

105 A.D.2d 1105, 482 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21197

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1984·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting the motion made by defendant against the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7). It is well settled that a complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the complaint is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, a cause of action is stated (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting the motion made by defendant against the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7). It is well settled that a complaint should not be dismissed on a pleading motion so long as, when the complaint is given the benefit of every possible favorable inference, a cause of action is stated (see Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634; Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Eckert v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 105 A.D.2d 1105, 482 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

105 A.D.2d 1105 (Eckert v. Columbus McKinnon Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related