Passannante v. National Cloak & Suit Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Passannante v. National Cloak & Suit Co.

123 Misc. 915, 206 N.Y.S. 609, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1231

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 11, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Misc. 915 (Passannante v. National Cloak & Suit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Passannante v. National Cloak & Suit Co., 123 Misc. 915, 206 N.Y.S. 609, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The complaint alleges that while plaintiff was in defendant’s store she was “ by force and arms violently seized by a servant of defendant * * * and in the presence of many people falsely and maliciously accused of being a thief * * * that the servant refused to release plaintiff and arrested her and maliciously detained and imprisoned her.” The complaint is so indefinite as to fail to make clear what plaintiff’s cause of action may be, or else it plainly alleges a cause of action in assault, one in slander and one for false imprisonment.

[916]*916The authority on which defendant’s motion was denied, namely, Stevens v. O’ Neill, 51 App. Div. 364, has no application whatsoever, although the complaint appears to have been like the present one, because no objection to the complaint was there made. The decision cited relates only to alleged errors committed on the trial.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The complaint alleges that while plaintiff was in defendant’s store she was “ by force and arms violently seized by a servant of defendant * * * and in the presence of many people falsely and maliciously accused of being a thief * * * that the servant refused to release plaintiff and arrested her and maliciously detained and imprisoned her.” The complaint is so indefinite as to fail to make clear what plaintiff’s cause of action may be, or else it plainly alleges a cause of action in assault, one in slander and one for false imprisonment.

[916]*916The authority on which defendant’s motion was denied, namely, Stevens v. O’ Neill, 51 App. Div. 364, has no application whatsoever, although the complaint appears to have been like the present one, because no objection to the complaint was there made. The decision cited relates only to alleged errors committed on the trial.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 915, 206 N.Y.S. 609, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passannante-v-national-cloak-suit-co-nyappterm-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack