Farray v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farray v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

120 A.D.2d 485, 501 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56556

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

DecidedMay 5, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 485 (Farray v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Farray v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 120 A.D.2d 485, 501 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for false imprisonment, etc., the defendants Eastern Airlines, Inc., and Edward Killeen appeal, as limited by their [486]*486brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated May 22, 1984, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint consists of a mélange of causes of action to recover damages for false imprisonment, false arrest and malicious prosecution which are hardly exemplary of good pleading practice. However, since the defendants’ motion to dismiss was addressed to the entire complaint, and on this record plaintiff has stated at least one legally sufficient cause of action, the motion must be denied (see, Birnbaum v Citibank, 97 AD2d 392; Country-Wide Leasing Corp. v Subaru Distribs. Corp., 85 AD2d 592).

Furthermore, we cannot say that the Systems Board of Adjustment disposed of the issues that the plaintiffs raised in their common-law tort action since that forum was concerned only with the limited questions before it. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for false imprisonment, etc., the defendants Eastern Airlines, Inc., and Edward Killeen appeal, as limited by their [486]*486brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated May 22, 1984, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The complaint consists of a mélange of causes of action to recover damages for false imprisonment, false arrest and malicious prosecution which are hardly exemplary of good pleading practice. However, since the defendants’ motion to dismiss was addressed to the entire complaint, and on this record plaintiff has stated at least one legally sufficient cause of action, the motion must be denied (see, Birnbaum v Citibank, 97 AD2d 392; Country-Wide Leasing Corp. v Subaru Distribs. Corp., 85 AD2d 592).

Furthermore, we cannot say that the Systems Board of Adjustment disposed of the issues that the plaintiffs raised in their common-law tort action since that forum was concerned only with the limited questions before it. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Fiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 485, 501 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farray-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack