Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co.

226 A.D. 765

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

DecidedApril 15, 1929

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D. 765 (Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co.) 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

Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., 226 A.D. 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order dated March 14, 1929, granting motion to resettle order dated January 21, 1929, reversed upon the law and motion denied, without costs. We fail to appreciate the action of counsel for the respective parties in this appeal. In Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1 (ante, p. 765), decided herewith, we have held the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, to be good. The defendant here appeals from an order, made upon motion by plaintiffs, to resettle the original order (Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1, supra) by striking out the bill of particulars, which removes the uncertainty arising from the alternative allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs’ intestate was “ lawfully upon or at or near ” the property of defendant. In view of the decision in Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1 (supra), the appeal from the order of January 21, 1929, is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

— Order dated March 14, 1929, granting motion to resettle order dated January 21, 1929, reversed upon the law and motion denied, without costs. We fail to appreciate the action of counsel for the respective parties in this appeal. In Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1 (ante, p. 765), decided herewith, we have held the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, to be good. The defendant here appeals from an order, made upon motion by plaintiffs, to resettle the original order (Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1, supra) by striking out the bill of particulars, which removes the uncertainty arising from the alternative allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs’ intestate was “ lawfully upon or at or near ” the property of defendant. In view of the decision in Flynn v. Brooklyn Improvement Co., No. 1 (supra), the appeal from the order of January 21, 1929, is dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D. 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-brooklyn-improvement-co-nyappdiv-1929.