McInerney v. New York World-Telegram Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McInerney v. New York World-Telegram Corp.

251 A.D. 741, 297 N.Y.S. 687, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7329

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 1937·Published

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to [742]*742state separately and number the causes of action contained in the complaint, or, in the alternative, to strike out paragraphs tenth and eleventh thereof and Exhibits “ B ” and “ C,” thereto annexed, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent of striking out said paragraphs and exhibits. (De Groot v. Brooklyn Daily Times, No. 1, 233 App. Div. 774.) Defendant has leave to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to [742]*742state separately and number the causes of action contained in the complaint, or, in the alternative, to strike out paragraphs tenth and eleventh thereof and Exhibits “ B ” and “ C,” thereto annexed, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent of striking out said paragraphs and exhibits. (De Groot v. Brooklyn Daily Times, No. 1, 233 App. Div. 774.) Defendant has leave to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

McInerney v. New York World-Telegram Corp., 251 A.D. 741, 297 N.Y.S. 687, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

251 A.D. 741 (McInerney v. New York World-Telegram Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related