Mili Work Center, Inc. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mili Work Center, Inc. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.

13 A.D.2d 806

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

DecidedMay 15, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 806 (Mili Work Center, Inc. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp.) 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

Mili Work Center, Inc. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 13 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages from defendant Lasker-Goldman corporation for alleged breach of a contract of bailment, and to recover damages from the United States Plywood Corporation for alleged breach of warranty, plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 19, 1960, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint for patent insufficiency, pursuant to rule 106 [807]*807of the Rules of Civil Practice. Orders affirmed, without costs, and with leave to plaintiff, if so advised, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, to serve a second amended complaint. The present complaint fails to allege facts showing a cause of action against either defendant on any cognizable legal theory. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages from defendant Lasker-Goldman corporation for alleged breach of a contract of bailment, and to recover damages from the United States Plywood Corporation for alleged breach of warranty, plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 19, 1960, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint for patent insufficiency, pursuant to rule 106 [807]*807of the Rules of Civil Practice. Orders affirmed, without costs, and with leave to plaintiff, if so advised, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, to serve a second amended complaint. The present complaint fails to allege facts showing a cause of action against either defendant on any cognizable legal theory. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mili-work-center-inc-v-lasker-goldman-corp-nyappdiv-1961.