H. M. Brown, Inc. v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H. M. Brown, Inc. v. Price

38 A.D.2d 680, 327 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 680 (H. M. Brown, Inc. v. Price) 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

H. M. Brown, Inc. v. Price, 38 A.D.2d 680, 327 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion to dismiss complaint denied. Memorandum: Special Term incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action. Motions to dismiss should not be granted unless it is clear that there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the complaint (Richardson v. Coy, 28 A D 2d 640). Absent a showing of any prejudice, defects in form should be ignored (CPLR 3026; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Prac., par. 3013.03). Our inquiry is limited to whether the pleading states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law (Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60). Viewed in that light, the complaint states causes of action for goods sold and services rendered (cf. CPLR Appendix of Official Forms, Form 6) and for an account stated (Schutz v. Morette, 146 N. Y. 137, 144; 8 Encyclopedia of New York Law, Contracts, § 3007; 4 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 29.241). This determination is without prejudice, however, to defendant’s moving to have the causes of action for goods delivered and services rendered separately stated (CPLR 3014; CPLR 3024, subd. [a]; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Prac., par. 3014.09). (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Special Term dismissing complaint in action for goods sold, etc.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion to dismiss complaint denied. Memorandum: Special Term incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action. Motions to dismiss should not be granted unless it is clear that there can be no relief under any of the facts alleged in the complaint (Richardson v. Coy, 28 A D 2d 640). Absent a showing of any prejudice, defects in form should be ignored (CPLR 3026; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Prac., par. 3013.03). Our inquiry is limited to whether the pleading states in some recognizable form any cause of action known to our law (Foley v. D’Agostino, 21 A D 2d 60). Viewed in that light, the complaint states causes of action for goods sold and services rendered (cf. CPLR Appendix of Official Forms, Form 6) and for an account stated (Schutz v. Morette, 146 N. Y. 137, 144; 8 Encyclopedia of New York Law, Contracts, § 3007; 4 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 29.241). This determination is without prejudice, however, to defendant’s moving to have the causes of action for goods delivered and services rendered separately stated (CPLR 3014; CPLR 3024, subd. [a]; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Prac., par. 3014.09). (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Special Term dismissing complaint in action for goods sold, etc.) Present — Marsh, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 680, 327 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-m-brown-inc-v-price-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack