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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 5, 1986·Published

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.

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

120 A.D.2d 485 (Farray v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related