Norwijul Corp. v. Town of Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norwijul Corp. v. Town of Huntington

51 A.D.2d 583, 379 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 583 (Norwijul Corp. v. Town of Huntington) 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

Norwijul Corp. v. Town of Huntington, 51 A.D.2d 583, 379 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a tort action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 22, 1974, which (1) granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and the amended complaint and (2) granted plaintiffs leave to replead the allegations contained in certain paragraphs of the amended complaint against defendant Joseph T. McDonald, personally. Order modified by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the word "Amended”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. The modification is required in order to correct a typographical error in the order appealed from and to bring it into conformity with the memorandum decision of Special Term. In all other respects the order must be affirmed, as it is our opinion that the complaint and the amended complaint fail to state a cause of action (see Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd 15 NY2d 831). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiami and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In a tort action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 22, 1974, which (1) granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and the amended complaint and (2) granted plaintiffs leave to replead the allegations contained in certain paragraphs of the amended complaint against defendant Joseph T. McDonald, personally. Order modified by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the word "Amended”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondents. The modification is required in order to correct a typographical error in the order appealed from and to bring it into conformity with the memorandum decision of Special Term. In all other respects the order must be affirmed, as it is our opinion that the complaint and the amended complaint fail to state a cause of action (see Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd 15 NY2d 831). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiami and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 583, 379 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norwijul-corp-v-town-of-huntington-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack