Franklin v. City of Norwich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin v. City of Norwich

258 A.D. 757, 14 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 757 (Franklin v. City of Norwich) 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

Franklin v. City of Norwich, 258 A.D. 757, 14 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant, City of Norwich, has appealed from an order of the Chenango Special Term of the Supreme Court denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The city’s contention is that the complaint fails to allege a proper presentation of the claim, out of which the action arose, to the common council of the city as required by the provisions of the City Charter. While the complaint is not a model pleading the allegations thereof and the statements in the bill of particulars contain all the essential elements of a good cause of action in compliance with the provisions of the defendant’s charter. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present —■ Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffeman, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Defendant, City of Norwich, has appealed from an order of the Chenango Special Term of the Supreme Court denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The city’s contention is that the complaint fails to allege a proper presentation of the claim, out of which the action arose, to the common council of the city as required by the provisions of the City Charter. While the complaint is not a model pleading the allegations thereof and the statements in the bill of particulars contain all the essential elements of a good cause of action in compliance with the provisions of the defendant’s charter. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present —■ Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffeman, Sehenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 757, 14 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-city-of-norwich-nyappdiv-1939.