James v. Gary Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James v. Gary Co.

39 A.D.2d 957, 333 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4270

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

DecidedJune 19, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 957 (James v. Gary 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

James v. Gary Co., 39 A.D.2d 957, 333 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 9, 1971, as denied the branch of the motion of defendants Gary Company and Endo Laboratories, in which the other three defendants joined, which was to dismiss the second cause of action alleged in the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], [958]*958par. 7). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to respondents jointly against appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs. Although the second cause of action concededly was inartistieally drawn, we are nonetheless of the view that under our existing liberalized rules of pleading (CPLR 3013; Practice Commentaries on CPLR 3211, Professor David D. Siegel, in McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, 3211:24, pp. 30-31) sufficient is shown in the pleading of that cause of action to support a cause for inducing the breach of a contract, or for interfering with a contract (cf. Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N. Y. 443; Tatarsky v. Wavecrest Bldg. Corp. 268 App. Div. 885; Spencer v. WABC-TV, 31 A D 2d 892; 29 ALR 3d, annos. pp. 1229, 1237-1240). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, 'Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 9, 1971, as denied the branch of the motion of defendants Gary Company and Endo Laboratories, in which the other three defendants joined, which was to dismiss the second cause of action alleged in the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], [958]*958par. 7). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to respondents jointly against appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs. Although the second cause of action concededly was inartistieally drawn, we are nonetheless of the view that under our existing liberalized rules of pleading (CPLR 3013; Practice Commentaries on CPLR 3211, Professor David D. Siegel, in McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, 3211:24, pp. 30-31) sufficient is shown in the pleading of that cause of action to support a cause for inducing the breach of a contract, or for interfering with a contract (cf. Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N. Y. 443; Tatarsky v. Wavecrest Bldg. Corp. 268 App. Div. 885; Spencer v. WABC-TV, 31 A D 2d 892; 29 ALR 3d, annos. pp. 1229, 1237-1240). Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, 'Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 957, 333 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-gary-co-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack