Moller v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moller v. Board of Education

30 A.D.2d 998, 294 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3184

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 998 (Moller v. Board of Education) 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

Moller v. Board of Education, 30 A.D.2d 998, 294 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal from an order of Special Term, Albany County, entered on September 9, 1966, denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The issue as stated by the appellant is whether or not the respondents’ amended complaint alleges “ all the elements of any recognizable cause of action in any of the six causes of action set forth [therein] ”. While the amended complaint is deficient in many respects, the Special Term was correct in denying the relief sought herein which is the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. As the proof develops at the trial, the court will be in a position to determine whether the several causes of action are proven and to reappraise the pleadings. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J. P.

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

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal from an order of Special Term, Albany County, entered on September 9, 1966, denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The issue as stated by the appellant is whether or not the respondents’ amended complaint alleges “ all the elements of any recognizable cause of action in any of the six causes of action set forth [therein] ”. While the amended complaint is deficient in many respects, the Special Term was correct in denying the relief sought herein which is the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. As the proof develops at the trial, the court will be in a position to determine whether the several causes of action are proven and to reappraise the pleadings. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J. P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 998, 294 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moller-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1968.