Heinrichs v. Standard Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heinrichs v. Standard Oil Co.

248 A.D. 901, 290 N.Y.S. 620, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8008

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 901 (Heinrichs v. Standard Oil 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

Heinrichs v. Standard Oil Co., 248 A.D. 901, 290 N.Y.S. 620, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it and the bills of particulars do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Neither the complaint nor the bills of particulars contains any facts showing that plaintiff was invited on the premises to perform an act for the benefit of defendant, and not for the convenience of the person in charge, who invited him to enter. There are no facts stated which show that there was any necessity for the person in charge to request plaintiff to assist him,. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it and the bills of particulars do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Neither the complaint nor the bills of particulars contains any facts showing that plaintiff was invited on the premises to perform an act for the benefit of defendant, and not for the convenience of the person in charge, who invited him to enter. There are no facts stated which show that there was any necessity for the person in charge to request plaintiff to assist him,. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 901, 290 N.Y.S. 620, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinrichs-v-standard-oil-co-nyappdiv-1936.