Pansmith v. Incorporated Village of Island Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pansmith v. Incorporated Village of Island Park

271 A.D.2d 841

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 25, 1946·Published

Opinion

Appeal from order denying defendants’ motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is insufficient in law. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to answer is extended until ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The complaint contains three causes of action. If any one of them is sufficient the motion was properly denied. (Halstead V. General By. Signal Co., 268 App. Div. 1060; Adreance v. Lorentzen, 269 App. Div. 987; Allcock V. Cohen, 269 App. Div. 1050.) As a matter of mere pleading the complaint is sufficient in law. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from order denying defendants’ motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is insufficient in law. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ time to answer is extended until ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The complaint contains three causes of action. If any one of them is sufficient the motion was properly denied. (Halstead V. General By. Signal Co., 268 App. Div. 1060; Adreance v. Lorentzen, 269 App. Div. 987; Allcock V. Cohen, 269 App. Div. 1050.) As a matter of mere pleading the complaint is sufficient in law. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Pansmith v. Incorporated Village of Island Park, 271 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 841 (Pansmith v. Incorporated Village of Island Park) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related