Moore v. Warfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Warfield

18 A.D.2d 997, 238 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 997 (Moore v. Warfield) 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

Moore v. Warfield, 18 A.D.2d 997, 238 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 16, 1962, denying motion to strike out third and fourth causes of action in amended complaint, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements and the motion granted with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein with notice of entry. It is impossible to tell from the amended complaint whether the third and fourth causes of action refer to the same contract, different contracts or an amendment or novation of a contract. The resulting confusion prevents an adequate response to the pleading. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valenite, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on November 16, 1962, denying motion to strike out third and fourth causes of action in amended complaint, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements and the motion granted with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint within 10 days after service of a copy of the order entered herein with notice of entry. It is impossible to tell from the amended complaint whether the third and fourth causes of action refer to the same contract, different contracts or an amendment or novation of a contract. The resulting confusion prevents an adequate response to the pleading. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valenite, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 997, 238 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-warfield-nyappdiv-1963.