Ross v. Pizer

132 A.D. 696, 117 N.Y.S. 404, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1578
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 A.D. 696 (Ross v. Pizer) 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
Ross v. Pizer, 132 A.D. 696, 117 N.Y.S. 404, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Clarke, J.:

The complaint alleges that the defendants were the executors of ' the estate of Jacob Pizer and had control of a tenement house; that plaintiff was a tenant and occupant of an apartment on the third floor thereof; that the said building and premises were negligently and carelessly maintained by defendants, inasmuch as they have failed to keep the ceiling in proper repair as said defendant had agreed; that by reason o.f said promises plaintiff continued to live in said' premises, and while in such possession and because of said promises and representations, which defendant failed to perform, and because of such false and fraudulent representation, plaintiff-continued to [697]*697reside in said apartment, and was by reason! thereof seriously injured by reason of said falling ceiling, which did strike said plaintiff, did sustain considerable injury and damage in consequence thereof.

Defendants moved for judgment upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and from the order denying said motion they appeal.

This complaint contains allegations appropriate to three causes of action — breach of contract, negligence and deceit. The facts alleged do not sufficiently set forth a complete cause of action upon any theory. The motion for judgment should, therefore, have been granted.

As the plaintiff may he able to sufficiently allege a good cause of action, the order appealed from should he reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within ten days after the service of the order to - be entered hereon, upon payment of the costs of appeal and the costs of the action. If sncli amended complaint be served and costs paid, the motion for judgment will be denied. Entry of judgment is stayed for ten days after service of this order.

Ingraham, McLaughlin, Houghton, and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to. amend on terms stated in ©pinion. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

De Motte v. Arkell
247 P. 254 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Framingham Trust Co. v. Villard
74 Misc. 204 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D. 696, 117 N.Y.S. 404, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-pizer-nyappdiv-1909.