Kinsella v. Goff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinsella v. Goff

284 A.D. 1024, 134 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 1024 (Kinsella v. Goff) 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

Kinsella v. Goff, 284 A.D. 1024, 134 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the defendants-appellants-respondents, and motion granted, with $10 costs with leave to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof, upon payment of costs of the motion and of this appeal. Memorandum: We interpret the order of the Special Term as inferentially denying defendants’ motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the second cause of action. As so interpreted- we feel that the order appealed from should be reversed and the cause of action dismissed. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241.) “ General allegations of wrongdoing based upon undisclosed facts do not state a cause of action.” (Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180, 183-184.) All concur. (Cross appeals from an order denying in part and granting in part defendants’ motion to strike out the second cause of action under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the defendants-appellants-respondents, and motion granted, with $10 costs with leave to serve an amended complaint within ten days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry thereof, upon payment of costs of the motion and of this appeal. Memorandum: We interpret the order of the Special Term as inferentially denying defendants’ motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the second cause of action. As so interpreted- we feel that the order appealed from should be reversed and the cause of action dismissed. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241.) “ General allegations of wrongdoing based upon undisclosed facts do not state a cause of action.” (Gerdes v. Reynolds, 281 N. Y. 180, 183-184.) All concur. (Cross appeals from an order denying in part and granting in part defendants’ motion to strike out the second cause of action under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 1024, 134 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsella-v-goff-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack